The Management
Handbook
For UN Field Missions
International Peace Institute, 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017
www.ipinst.org
© 2012 by International Peace Institute
All rights reserved. Published June 2012
The International Peace Institute (IPI) is an independent, international not-for-profit
think tank with a staff representing more than twenty nationalities, with offices in
New York, facing United Nations headquarters, and in Vienna. IPI is dedicated to
promoting the prevention and settlement of conflicts between and within states by
strengthening international peace and security institutions. To achieve its purpose,
IPI employs a mix of policy research, convening, publishing, and outreach.
ISBN: 0-937722-90-1
ISBN-13: 978-0-937722-90-9
Cover and book design by Michael Moon
CO N T E N TS
FOREWORD: AMEERAH HAQ,
HERVÉ LADSOUS, B. LYNN PASCOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
PREFACE: TERJE RØD-LARSEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. ORGANIZATION & COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. LEADERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3. PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4. COMMUNICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5. MANAGING PEOPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6. DECISION MAKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7. TIME MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
8. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
9. MANAGING SECURITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
10. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
11. PROJECT MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
12. EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
EXPANDED CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
v
F O R E WO R D
FOREWORD:
Never before has the United Nations been asked to do so much.
The demand for a more agile, modern, and efficient global organization has led Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to make management reform one of his top priorities. His goal is to create
a performance-driven and results-oriented United Nations that
meets the high expectations of the world’s people.
As heads of the UN Departments of Field Support, Peacekeeping, and Political Affairs, our focus is on strengthening the way
we manage efforts to prevent and resolve conflict. The mandates
of peacekeeping operations have become more multidimensional
than ever, integrating military, police, and civilian efforts under
a common vision. Similarly, UN special political missions have
grown considerably in size and complexity since their establishment in the early 1990s.
Those who serve in our field missions and on the frontlines of
conflict know better than anyone the challenges and dangers involved in carrying out complex mandates in the face of constant
political, operational, and resource constraints. Success in such
contexts is hard won. We succeed more often than we fail, but
because the stakes are so high, we must always look to improve
the way we work, including through greater transparency and accountability.
We must begin by improving how we manage our scarce and
precious resources: time, money, and people. This handbook is a
valuable resource to help our personnel in the field and throughout the United Nations system do just that. We warmly welcome
this IPI initiative. While it does not constitute official United Nations policy, the handbook provides very useful and concise reminders of good management methods and effective working
practices, thereby complementing our own internal processes of
training and continuous learning.
We hope it reaches a wide audience and helps the brave and talented men and women engaged in UN field operations to carry
vii
out this critically important work. More generally, we also thank
the IPI for continuing to be, as the Secretary-General has said, “a
source of sound advice and state-of-the-art knowledge” that has
“enriched and enabled our mission.”
Ameerah Haq
Under-Secretary-General
UN Department of Field Support
Hervé Ladsous
Under-Secretary-General
UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
B. Lynn Pascoe
Under-Secretary-General
UN Department of Political Affairs
viii
P R E FAC E
I am proud to present The Management Handbook for UN Field
Missions, a project of the International Peace Institute (IPI) aimed
at strengthening the effectiveness of UN peace and security efforts across the globe. Since its founding in 1970, IPI (then named
the International Peace Academy, IPA) has worked to improve UN
peace operations. In fact, IPA developed the very first handbook
for UN peacekeepers, The Peacekeeper’s Handbook, in 1978.
Responding to the critical need for formal guidance on peacekeeping, and well before the creation of the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations, it took IPA nearly five years to develop
a formal guidebook for peacekeeping troops. In the foreword of
The Peacekeeper’s Handbook, my predecessor, Major General Indar Jit Rikye, reflected his hope that the handbook would “assist
the nations of the world in the conduct of whatever international
peacekeeping operations are required in the future...as the leaders at the time may decide.” As he predicted, peacekeeping operations would come to look much different decades later. Today,
UN missions run the gamut from small political missions supporting the good offices of an SRSG, to billion-dollar, multidimensional peacekeeping operations employing thousands of civilians
alongside UN troops and police.
With so many personnel executing such a wide spectrum of activities in environments that are indeed challenging and complex,
the need for effective and efficient management is evident. It is
with this need in mind that IPI, working in close consultation with
the UN, developed The Management Handbook for UN Field Missions. We are indeed grateful for the support and encouragement
offered by the UN during the development of this handbook. Our
hope is that this resource will inspire you, the manager in the
field, to continually learn, reflect on, and improve your performance and that of your team. In so doing, you will no doubt help
create a smarter, more resilient, and, ultimately, more effective
United Nations.
Terje Rød-Larsen
President, International Peace Institute
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Management Handbook for UN Field Missions is the outcome
of a multiyear project carried out by IPI, but with significant contributions from a number of individuals and organizations. It was
made possible by the generous support of the government of
Australia, in particular the Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAID) and the Australian Department of Defence. Additional support was provided by the United Kingdom’s
Department for International Development (DFID) and the government of Canada, through its Permanent Mission to the United
Nations. This and many other IPI projects also draw support from
the donors to IPI’s flagship program, Coping with Crisis, in particular, the governments of Norway and Sweden.
Contributors
We would like to give special thanks to the authors who provided
the material that would become the handbook’s twelve chapters:
Alice Hecht, Julian Junk, Vickesh Kambaran, Till Papenfuss, Dirk
Salomons, and Cyrus Samii.
Reviewers
Particular thanks are owed to Phil Cooper, Ian Quick, and Darryl
Watters who provided invaluable feedback on the full manuscript
and made many substantive improvements to the final product.
We are also indebted to all the people who reviewed specific
chapters in their area of expertise and/or provided material for
or feedback on the case studies. These were: Nelly Ahouilihoua,
Suzanna Campbell, Gillian Cull, Elisabeth Diaz, Fabrizio Hochschild, Braima Jamanca, Toby Lanzer, Carole Magnaschi, Youssef
Mahmoud, Joanna Harvey, Barbara Nieuwenhuys, Jolyon Naegele, Huria Ogbamichael, Naresh Perinpanayagam, and Jascha
Scheele.
IPI is very grateful to the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Department of Field Support, and Department of Political Affairs for their support of the project. A “brownbag” meeting in 2009 with the Division of Policy, Evaluation and
Training and an expert roundtable discussion in 2010 both helped
inform the planning and design of the project. Commentary on
several chapters from the participants of the meeting of heads of
xi
political affairs components, senior political advisers, and civilian
chiefs of staff, held at IPI in October 2011, was particularly helpful.
Useful feedback was also provided by participants of the UN Senior Mission Leader Course held in Madrid in October/November
of 2011.
Design and Illustration
Much work was devoted to enhancing the usability and accessibility of this book. We are, therefore, very grateful to our designer
Michael Moon of The Moon Agency for his creativity, patience,
and expert design work. With his always insightful cartoons,
Emmanuel Letouzé (www.manucartoons.com) ably introduced
some levity to brighten a rather serious subject matter.
IPI Team
This project was conceived and designed by Francesco Mancini
and Adam C. Smith following research trips to UN field missions
in 2007–2008. Adam C. Smith oversaw the implementation as
project manager and co-editor. Arthur Boutellis guided and finalized the development of content as co-editor and lead researcher
starting in January 2011. Till Papenfuss contributed multifarious
support throughout the project: drafting, editorial, and administrative. Further editing, production support, and expert guidance
was given by the IPI Publications team, in particular, Adam Lupel,
assisted by Marie O’Reilly.
All content, including any errors or omissions contained herein, is
the sole responsibility of the International Peace Institute.
xii
AC R O N Y M S
ACRONYMS
AAR: After Action Review
ACABQ: Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary
Questions
ASG: Assistant Secretary-General
BINUB: United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi
BPO: Best Practice Officer
BVM: Best Value for Money
CAP: Consolidated Appeal for Haiti
CBO: Chief Budget Officer
CDC: Centers for Disease Control
CDR: Community-Directed Reconstruction
CEO: Chief Executive Officer
CHAP: Common Humanitarian Action Plan
CISS: Chief of Integrated Support Services
CIVCAP: Civilian Capacities
CONOP: Concept of Operation
CoP: Community of Practice
CPM: Critical Path Method
CV: Curriculum Vitae
DAP: Directorate of Penitentiary Administration
DDR: Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration
DFID: Department for International Development
DFS: Department of Field Support
DIS: Détachement Intégré de Sécurité
DMS: Director of Mission Support
DO: Designated Official
DPA: Department of Political Affairs
DPET: Policy Evaluation and Training Division
DPKO: Department of Peacekeeping Operations
xv
DRC: Democratic Republic of the Congo
DSRSG: Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General
DSS: Department of Safety and Security
ECOWAS: Economic Community of West African States
e-PAS: Electronic Performance Appraisal System
ERSG: Executive Representative of the Secretary-General
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization
FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions
FPD: Field Personnel Division
FRR: Financial Rules and Regulations
FRY: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
FYI: For Your Information
GA: United Nations General Assembly
GLU: Guidance and Learning Unit
GoB: Government of Burundi
HC: Humanitarian Coordinator
HCT: Humanitarian Country Team
HQ: Headquarters
I4S: International Security and Stabilization Support Strategy
ICRC: International Committee of the Red Cross
IDDRS: Integrated Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration Standards
IDP: Internally Displaced Person
ILO: International Labour Organization
IMPP: Integrated Mission Planning Process
IMTF: Integrated Mission Task Force
IOT: Integrated Operational Team
IPSAS: International Public Sector Accounting Standards
ISF: Integrated Strategic Framework
ISG: Integration Steering Group
ITF: Integrated Task Force
JACLM: Joint Advisory Committee on Legislative Matters
JLOC: Joint Logistics Operations Centre
xvi
JMAC: Joint Mission Analysis Centre
JMEU: Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
JOTC: Joint Operations and Tasking Centre
KFOR: Kosovo Force
KM: Knowledge Management
M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation
MINURCAT: United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad
MINUSTAH: United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti
MONUSCO: United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo
MOSS: Minimum Operating Security Standards
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NGO: Nongovernmental Organization
OCHA: Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OHCHR: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
OHRM: Office of Human Resource Management
OIOS: Office of Internal Oversight Services
OLA: Office of Legal Affairs
ONUB: United Nations Operation in Burundi
OROLSI: Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions
PBC: Peacebuilding Commission
PBF: Peacebuilding Fund
PBI: Programme Budget Implications
PBSO: Peacebuilding Support Office
PCPP: Peace Corps Partnership Program
PDNA: Post-Disaster Needs Assessment
PHP: Personal History Profile
PMCA: Pre-Mandate Commitment Authority
PPT: PowerPoint
QIP: Quick Impact Project
R&R: Rest and Recuperation
RBB: Results-Based Budgeting
xvii
RC: Resident Coordinator
SAFAR: Strategic Alliance Formative Assessment Rubric
SCR: Security Council Resolution
SDS: Strategic Deployment Stocks
SLA: Service-Level Agreement
SMART: Specific, Measureable, Assignable, Realistic,
and Time-Bound
SMARTER: Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic,
Time-Bound, Ethical, and Recorded
SMT: Senior Management Team
SOW: Statement of Work
SP-CoP: Stabilization and Peacebuilding Community of Practice
SPM: Special Political Mission
SRSG: Special Representative of the Secretary-General
SSR: Security-Sector Reform
SWOT: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
TAM: Technical Assessment Mission
TOR: Terms of Reference
TVA: Temporary Vacancy Announcement
UNAIDS: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
UNAMSIL: United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone
UNCT: United Nations Country Team
UNDAF: United Nations Development Assistance Framework
UNDP: United Nations Development Programme
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNFPA: United Nations Population Fund
UN-HABITAT: United Nations Human Settlements Programme
UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund
UNIFEM: United Nations Development Fund for Women
UNIMT: United Nations Integrated Management Team
UNLB: United Nations Logistics Base
xviii
UNMIK: United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo
UNMIL: United Nations Mission in Liberia
UNMISET: United Nations Mission of Support to East Timor
UNPOL: United Nations Police
UNSCOM: United Nations Special Commission
UNV: United Nations Volunteer
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
USG: Under-Secretary-General
VTC: Video Teleconference
WFP: World Food Programme
WHO: World Health Organization
WMD: Weapons of Mass Destruction
xix
INTRODUCTION
“The United Nations faces unprecedented demands on leadership capacity as the number, size and complexity of peacekeeping and political missions has expanded dramatically in recent
years….mission leaders should ideally possess demonstrated experience in strategic planning and management of large, complex organizations.” – Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General1
Why Is Management Important?
The UN field mission is a complex beast. From the smallest political mission to the largest peacekeeping operation, it employs a
uniquely diverse staff and performs a broad array of tasks in an
environment that is sometimes dangerous, often unstable, and
always challenging. Resources are scarce and inflexible. Internal
regulations and procedures are cumbersome, and, at times, can
impede rather than facilitate success. On top of it all, success is
often hard to measure or even recognize. Unlike the private sector, success in the field does not come from increased quarterly
profits, but rather from a conflict prevented, the perception of a
peace dividend, or the renewed optimism of a host population.
Unfortunately, UN staff can only contribute to these goals, as so
many factors are beyond the mission’s control.
In such an unforgiving environment, management might seem
a peripheral consideration to some. Yet, the opposite, in fact,
should be the case. Precisely because political, bureaucratic, and
resource constraints characterize field missions, good management can sometimes mean the difference between success and
failure. Sound management is essential to achieving the goals of
any organization, regardless of the context, and UN field missions
are no exception. Its complexity and uniqueness should not be
excuses for bad management or poor results. In fact, if managed
well, environmental complexity can increase the resilience of an
organization and enhance its ability to adapt, learn, and thrive in
changing contexts.
What Is Management?
Management, in its broadest sense, is the act of organizing and
directing a set of resources to accomplish clearly-defined goals
and objectives. Management includes planning, organizing, di 1 United Nations Secretary-General, “Report of the Secretary-General on Peacebuilding in the
Immediate Aftermath of Conflict,” UN Doc. S/2009/304, June 11, 2009.
1
recting, monitoring, and evaluating the activities of an organization in accordance with certain policies. Of course, all activities of an organization take place in a specific context. When the
“best” choices are not possible in a given context, due to political,
bureaucratic, or financial constraints, management is very often
about improvisation or choosing the “second-best” option.
Management can be seen as a science, because it deals with
knowledge, models, and tools, and as an art, because it concerns
style, practice, and application. It has been said that management
is the art of common sense.2 Yet as straightforward as some of
the ideas in this handbook may seem, most managers have a
hard time implementing them consistently. At the end of the day,
management is about human beings. The purpose of management is “to make people capable of joint performance, to make
their strengths effective and their weaknesses irrelevant.”3
What Isn’t Management?
Misconceptions about management abound, and these can often lead to frustration or disillusionment. First, knowing how to
manage does not come with the job. Being a good manager is
something different from being a good political affairs officer or
a good gender adviser. It entails a distinct skill set that must be
learned, through experience and training, and practiced repeatedly. Management skills require a greater focus on processes, results, and the people around you. These skills include leadership,
team building, financial acumen, accountability, and sharing responsibility for the performance of others.
Second, being a manager does not necessarily mean having
more power or freedom to act. Managers often have increased
formal authority, access, and status, which may not necessarily
equate to power or influence—especially within organizations
such as the United Nations. To act, managers must often rely on
the cooperation or agreement of others within and outside of the
organization. Some can become frustrated when they find they
lack control over the actions of others or over outcomes. These
limitations, of course, are no surprise to anyone familiar with the
workings of a large bureaucracy. But it is precisely within these
constraints that good managers make their presence felt.
2 Steven Cohen and William Eimicke, The Effective Public Manager (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2002).
3 Peter F. Drucker, “Management as Social Function and Liberal Art” in The Essential Drucker
(New York: HarperCollins, 2001).
2
How Can This Handbook Help You Do Your Job Better?
The Management Handbook provides succinct background information on management theory and practice and offers practical
tools and insights on key elements of management. These are
complemented with real-life examples from UN field missions,
and checklists for self-evaluation and diagnosis. It is our hope
that the principles, tools, and tips will become useful baseline resources for everyone in the field who struggles with management
tasks—be they at the bottom or the top of the organizational
hierarchy.
The Management Handbook features twelve chapters. It opens
by examining management issues at a strategic level: organization and coordination, leadership, and planning. The next section
covers the set of management skills that any successful manager has learned to master: communication, managing people,
decision making, and time management. The final chapters—on
knowledge management, security, financial management, project
management, and evaluation—outline how an organization is run
prudently, efficiently, predictably, and with maximum impact.
Please note that this handbook should not be seen as a substitute for training. While it will serve as a practical reference guide,
becoming a good manager does not occur from just reading a
book. Management is learned by doing—through training and on
the job. Learning from doing means that a good manager reflects
on his or her experiences once they have occurred: What went
right? What went wrong? And what could be improved the next
time? A good manager also gathers feedback from those working around him or her: superiors, colleagues, and subordinates. It
is important not only to ask what was done but also how it was
done. This will help in understanding managerial style and its effect on people and outcomes. Finally, from these self-reflections
and feedback, a good manager learns to anticipate situations in
which a difficult action must be taken or decision made. Knowing
in advance how one will respond to a potential challenge greatly
improves the chances for success and the overall resilience of the
organization.
Every effort has been made to ensure that the following pages are
filled with insights and tools relevant to those working in UN field
missions. We hope that you read it, consult it often, and reflect
on your actions and the outcomes they produce. We also hope
that you take every opportunity to hone your management skills
through training. In so doing, you will become a more effective
manager, and as a result the UN will be a stronger, more effective
organization for all who work in it and all who depend on it.
3
1
Organization & Coordination
O R G A N I Z AT I O N
& COORDINATION
To organize is to align strategic interests with operational priorities within given structural prerequisites and means. Organization and coordination aim to make the functioning of an entire
institution more predictable and its output more effective. OVERVIEW
Various forms of organization define the daily and professional
lives of everyone everywhere. Organization provides structure
and order. Internally, however, organizations are full of competing
activities and comprise a variety of fluid entities.
UN field missions are no exception, and getting the different
pieces of a fragmented UN to work together more effectively is
a daily challenge for managers. UN managers have to build large
administrative and operational structures when a peace operation is mandated. Subsequently, they have to adapt these structures according to changes in the mandate and the environment,
and they have to draw down and liquidate them once a mandate
expires or the conditions allow for other options. These acts of
starting up, adapting, and transforming structures are no easy
tasks, as organizational pathologies such as turf battles, uncontrolled growth, and internal politics are widespread. Moreover,
the UN’s spectrum of actors in the field acting alongside its field
missions—the numerous agencies, funds, and programs—creates
the need for elaborate processes of coordination and integration.
This chapter addresses coordination challenges in UN field missions that are political and bureaucratic by nature, and cautions
that “integration” is not, either at the strategic or operational level, a panacea. UN field operations are multidimensional, involve a
range of diverse and interdependent actors, and their ability to
accomplish their multiple political, security, humanitarian, or development objectives simultaneously depends on collaboration
within and beyond the mission. Also, different levels of integration and coordination may be best adapted to different realities
on the ground.
At the same time, all actors are under constant pressure to show
quick results (“to deliver”) in implementing the mandate to the
benefit of the conflict-affected society, while the time-consuming
business of developing appropriate structures to do so is often
pushed to the sidelines. In recent years, however, the UN has given a great deal of attention to developing peace operations with
8
structures and processes that effectively integrate (or at least
highly coordinate) the organization’s various actors under one
strategic vision of building sustainable peace.
This section introduces the concepts of organization and integration, highlights some of the practical challenges and limitations
to a UN integrated approach, and provides some tools to overcome some of these challenges.
What should you get out of this chapter?
• Become familiar with key concepts of coordination and organizational development.
• Understand the particular organizational needs of a UN field mission.
• Acquire tools that can help you improve the way you work in a network-like
organization.
• Comprehend the rationale of the move toward integrated UN missions, and
understand some of the practical challenges to working together toward a
common objective in practice.
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
UN operations are unique and complex in that they are both political and bureaucratic. They are political at the top due to member states making decisions that are often suboptimal, as they are
always the product of a negotiation within an intergovernmental
setting (e.g., the Security Council mandating peace operations).
They are bureaucratic at the bottom because the UN Secretariat
(i.e., the UN bureaucracy—from headquarters down to the field
mission) has to implement these political decisions.
In 2000, the seminal “Report of the Panel on United Nations
Peace Operations” (the Brahimi Report) advocated for mandates
and resolutions that are unambiguous and based on realistic assessments of mission requirements. In practice, however, managers in UN field missions will continue to have to implement complex, contradictory, or sometimes ambiguous mandates while
working across strategic, operational, and tactical levels (fig. 1).
9
Figure 1.1. Organizational chart for UN field missions
Security Council
Secretary-General
UN Secretariat
STRATEGIC
Head of Mission
Mission Headquarters &
Leadership Team
OPERATIONAL
Component Heads
Civilian Units
Military Units
TACTICAL
Police Units
Regional Offices
(Source: United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Department
of Field Support, Mission Start-Up Field Guide for Senior Managers of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, New York: United Nations, February 2008.)
Organizational Forms and Processes
What does that mean in organizational terms? In theory, three
fundamental organizational forms can be distinguished: hierarchies, networks, and markets. In hierarchies, coordination takes
place horizontally, between functional tasks, and vertically,
through command and control frameworks. Networks, on the
other hand, consist of multiple organizations that are loosely tied
together, with coordination resulting from repeated interactions
rather than formal arrangements. In markets the main coordination mechanism is supply and demand. UN field missions are a
mixture of hierarchical and network forms of organization.
The hierarchy of a peace operation extends vertically from the
headquarters (HQ) down to the field level. The HQ level is characterized by intergovernmental elements, the Security Council,
10
the Committees of the General Assembly, bureaucratic elements,
parts of the Secretary-General’s Executive Office, DPKO, DPA,
DFS, the Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO), and the UN regional hubs such as the Logistics Base in Brindisi, Italy. At the
field level, this hierarchy is extended from the top to the bottom of a peace operation or political mission. It is important for
managers to be aware of this hierarchical line of authority—it is
impossible to carry out tasks unaffected by the opportunities
and constraints imposed by interlinkages of the international,
regional, and local level of the UN bureaucracy. Indeed, managing in peace operations is never an apolitical task. Frequent exchanges of information and coordination with headquarters, as
well as an awareness of the political processes involving member
states there (in the Security Council, the General Assembly’s Fifth
Committee, the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations,
etc.), are essential.
In addition to the formal hierarchy within the UN mission bureaucracy, there is a coexisting network-like structure of political, humanitarian, and development actors that all have their own
bureaucratic structures and lines of authority. Under these circumstances, aligning everyone’s activities toward a similar purpose and delivering coherently requires different managerial attention and skills than in a hierarchical setting.
Organizing can be divided into two basic processes, specialization and coordination. Both are dependent on the organizational form within which organizing is supposed to take place. An
organizational form constrains the set of available managerial
responses. For example, in hierarchical settings, coordination is
formal and deliberate, linking policymaking at the top of the organization with operations at the bottom. Organizational charts,
explicit assignment of authority and responsibility, and specification of procedures and sanction mechanisms are essential. By
contrast, network-like structures involve rather ad hoc, emergent,
and collaboration-based modes of coordination, such as creating
and nurturing social networks and dialogue, as well as leaving
ample room for deliberation, trial and error, and ad hoc responses.
11
Specialization
Specialization refers to the breaking down of a process into subprocesses and the assignment of staff and resources accordingly.
The need for specialization within the UN has led to the creation
of many specialized UN agencies (funds and programs such as
UNDP, UNFPA, UNHCR, WFP, etc.) that operate alongside UN
missions in the field. As mentioned above, these other organizations adhere to their own principles and priorities, and each have
their own hierarchical management structures and intergovernmental oversight bodies.
New entities have also recently been created within the UN Secretariat in New York: in 2005, the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC)
and the Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO), and in 2007, the
Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions (OROLSI), and the
Department of Field Support (DFS). While these institutional reforms responded to many real organizational needs, they have
also led to the compartmentalization and sometimes fragmentation of UN responses that become overly supply-driven (i.e.,
more focused on what the UN can provide than what is actually
needed).
Coordination
Coordination is understood as the re-connection of the various
subprocess outcomes. While the above-mentioned UN agencies
and departments are specialized, they are also linked together by
the bond of the United Nations Charter and increasingly by a web
of integrative interinstitutional links, interagency bodies, working
groups, and other loose coordination structures such as ad hoc
task forces, etc. Also, a number of joint planning documents are
used (see Planning chapter), such as “joint programs” between
the UN mission and country team, Integrated Strategic Frameworks (ISFs), UNDAFs, and Integrated Peacebuilding Frameworks. Some of these are internal to the UN system and others,
involving national authorities, can also facilitate coordination.
Coordination with non-UN, outside actors is also essential for
the overall success of the mission (and the term “coordination” is
generally used in that sense rather than for internal UN coordination), and is often part of the UN mission’s mandate, sometimes
but not always in support of national authorities. It is, however,
often the case that in spite of most people recognizing the need
for some level of coordination of international actors operating in
a given country (bilateral donors, international financial institutions, NGOs, etc.), organizations are generally reluctant to be co12
ordinated from the outside. This becomes particularly challenging when dealing with non-UN organizations and actors with very
different mandates and approaches. With these actors it is hardly
possible to govern by decree. Organizing is a social and a personal process, in which communication—listening and convincing
—plays an essential role. Yet, this is often easier said than done.
Managers in field missions always face the need to balance two
main structural challenges: integrating vertically and horizontally
(both elements are part of the integrated mission design, though
vertical integration has received more attention). The general
pattern for vertical integration is to establish strong central lines
of authority with significant operating responsibilities and make
the relations of social rank and social control explicit. Horizontal
integration, on the other hand, aims for fluid and transitory interaction: mutual links between more or less autonomous entities on
the operational level that depend on reciprocal relations of trust
and respect at the strategic level.
Organizational Development
Organizational development refers to managing change in organizations to make transformation a more deliberate process, with
the aim of increasing an organization’s viability and effectiveness.
As a distinct subfield of organization studies, it highlights behavioral aspects, emotions, and the importance of relationships in
organizational life. This is because any change in an organization requires changes of individual behavior, “unfreezing” of old
habits and routines, and overcoming fear of the new or unknown.
Understanding the importance of organizational development is
key, in part because organizing is never a purely rational process.
Planning weeks, months, or even years ahead is both possible
and necessary, but interruptions, surprises, diverging interests,
and obstructions make organizing all too often a messy process.
Managers should not be discouraged when not every piece is falling into place and plans need to be adapted. Flexibility, vigilance,
and creativity are necessary at the operational level to reach basic strategic goals. Hence, even though organizing is far from being an orderly process, as the very act of organizing cannot avoid
compromise, conflict, and improvisation, steering it is the essential task of any manager in peace operations (see Leadership and
Planning chapters).
From a structural point of view, managerial authority is of critical importance. However, as important as formal managerial authority (i.e., the right to decide) is, actual managerial authority,
13
(i.e., the effective control over decisions) is also crucial. It is not
enough to keep an eye on the legal texts, which outline a manager’s lines of control and responsibility. It is even more important
to be aware of patterns of, for instance, rivalry between multiple
superiors, lenient enforcement of rules or routines, or information
overload. The reputation of subordinates and principals also affects actual managerial authority.
There are many tools that can help when working across organizations or within a network-like organization. Some are highlighted
in other chapters of this handbook, including tools for managing
effective meetings (see case study in Time Management chapter)
and for establishing functioning internal and external communication (see Communication chapter). Also, secondments or staff
swaps between different parts of the organization (e.g., DPKO
and UNDP), as well as joint trainings and simulations, can all contribute to the better functioning of an organization by improving
the interaction among its components.
A number of approaches have also been suggested to bring the
different parts of an organization closer together. Collaboration
can be a strategy to achieve a goal that would be impossible if
independent entities only worked by themselves. Bringing about
successful collaboration and synergy, however, often requires a
certain type of leadership by managers who can foster collaboration and partnerships (see Leadership and Managing People
chapters). The assessment tool in table 1.1, the Strategic Alliance
Formative Assessment Rubric (SAFAR), can help one identify
and gauge the relative strength of a collaborative endeavor.
The whole-of-government approach—formerly known as the
“joined-up-government” approach—has also been presented as
an alternative to “departmentalism,” tunnel vision, and “vertical
silos,” as a way to address fragmentation in public administrations. It seeks to align the policies of the traditionally independent spheres of diplomacy, development, and defense toward a
common policy goal.
14
Table 1.1. Assessing strategic alliances
Level of .
integration
Purpose
Strategies .
and tasks
Leadership and
decision making
Interpersonal and
communication
Networking
Create a web of
communication
Loose or no
structure
Non-hierachical
Identify and
create a base of
support
Flexible, roles
not defined
Very little
interpersonal
conflict
Explore
interests
Cooperating
Work together
to ensure tasks
are done
Leverage or
raise money
Identify mutual needs, but
maintain separate identities
Partnering
Share resources
to address common issues
Organizations
remain
autonomous
but support
something new
To reach mutual
goals together
Merging
Merge resources
to create or support something
new
Extract money
from existing
systems or
members
Commitment for
a long period of
time to achieve
short- and longterm outcomes
Unifying
Unification or
acquisition to
form a single
structure
Relinquishment
of autonomy to
support surviving organization
Few if any
defined tasks
Member links
are advisory
Minimal
structure
Some
strategies
and tasks
identified
Strategies
and tasks are
developed and
maintained
Flexible
Minimal or no
group decision
making
Communication
among all
members
infrequent or
absent
Non-hierarchical,
decisions tend to
be low stakes
Some degree
of personal
commitment
and investment
Facilitative
leaders, usually
voluntary
Several people
form “go-to” hub
Autonomous
leadership
Central body
of people
Alliance members
share equally
in the decision
making
Central body
of people have
specific tasks
Decision-making
mechanisms are
in place
Formal
structure to
support strategies and tasks
is apparent
Strong, visible
leadership
Specific and
complex
strategies and
tasks identified
Sharing and delegation of roles
and responsibilities
Minimal
interpersonal
conflict
Communication
among members
clear, but may be
informal
Some
interpersonal
conflict
Communication system and
formal information channels
developed
Evidence of
problem solving
and productivity
High degree of
commitment and
investment
Possibility of
interpersonal
conflict high
Leadership
capitalizes upon
diversity and
organizational
strengths
Communication
is clear, frequent,
and prioritized
Highly formal,
legally complex
Central, typically
hierarchical
leadership
Possibility of
interpersonal
conflict very high
Permanent
reorganization
of strategies
and tasks
Leadership
capitalizes upon
diversity and
organizational
strengths
Communication
is clear, frequent,
prioritized, formal,
and informal
Committees
and subcommittees formed
High degree of
problem solving
and productivity
(From Rebecca Gajda, “Utilizing Collaboration Theory to Evaluate Strategic Alliances,” American Journal of Evaluation 25, No. 1 [2004]: 65-77.)
15
Integrated UN Missions
Organizing and coordinating the work of the United Nations is
a challenge at all levels—strategic, operational, and tactical. As
such, a number of institutional reforms have been undertaken
over the years to introduce a greater level of coherence within
the organization, importantly through the concept of the “integrated mission.” However, the concept of integration was first
embraced by the UN without much understanding of what it
meant in practice, leading initially to a degree of improvisation
in the field, until the concept was progressively formalized into
policy and guidelines.
In June 2008, following wide-ranging consultations with the main
parts of the UN, the Secretary-General’s policy committee reaffirmed integration as the guiding principle for engagement in
conflict and postconflict situations. It clearly stated that the principle should be applied wherever the UN has a “country team”
(consisting of the UN agencies, funds, and programs operating in
that country) and a multidimensional peacekeeping operation or
political mission or office. This means, on the other hand, that the
principle is not applied in countries with traditional peacekeeping
missions, whose mandates are limited to ceasefire monitoring, or
in conflict or postconflict countries without a political UN presence.
The 2008 policy decisions also clarified that integration applies
not only to missions that are “structurally integrated”—that is,
missions with a Deputy Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral (DSRSG) who is also the resident and humanitarian coordinator (RC/HC). In addition, country-level arrangements can
take different structural forms reflecting their differing needs and
circumstances, as the principle of modern architecture states:
“form follows function.” These forms translate an effective strategic partnership and shared vision between the UN mission or
office and the country team, under the leadership of the SRSG.
There is, therefore, now a greater focus on integration at the strategic and planning levels rather than just the structural level.
16
Early Timeline of UN Integration (1997–2007)
1997: UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan commissions “Renewing the United
Nations—A Programme for Reform” (A/51/950), which notes that “separate
UN entities…pursue their activities separately, without regard to or benefiting
from each other’s presence.” It rules that “all UN entities….at country level will
operate in common premises under a single UN flag.”
2000: The Brahimi Report points out the lack of integration at the headquarters level and recommends the creation of Integrated Mission Taskforces (IMTFs)—joint working groups that facilitate mission planning and coordination
among different UN entities at headquarters for peacekeeping operations.
Similar Integrated Task Forces (ITFs) now exist for special political missions
(SPMs) led by the Department of Political Affairs. The ITF is a coordination
and information-sharing mechanism for both headquarters and the field that
brings together all relevant departments, agencies, programs, and funds. As
for DPKO-led missions, the UN Department of Field Support provides administrative and logistical support to DPA-led missions as provided for by the
Service-Level Agreement (SLA).
2000: Guidance notes issued by the Secretary-General specify further integrated leadership structures in the field. This notably includes the creation of
a “double-hatted” or “triple-hatted” Deputy SRSG, in which the authority of
both the resident coordinator (RC) and humanitarian coordinator (HC) would
reside, “where feasible.” The DSRSG/RC/HC is tasked with ensuring that mission activities of the peace operation align with long-term development as well
as humanitarian initiatives carried out by the UN country team (UNCT). The
first “triple-hatted” position of DSRSG/RC/HC was established in Sierra Leone
in 2001. Other similar appointments followed.
2006: A further guidance note establishes that the DSRSG reports primarily to the SRSG and through him or her to the Under-Secretary-General for
Peacekeeping Operations, although with a secondary reporting line to the UN
Development Programme (UNDP). Also in 2006, the first Integrated Mission
Planning Process (IMPP) Guidelines are issued for both headquarters and the
field, which are revised respectively in 2010 and 2011 (see Planning chapter).
This new approach is to be the “authoritative basis for the planning of all new
integrated missions, as well as the revision of existing integration mission plans
for all UN departments, agencies, funds and programs.” This framework includes the earlier innovation introduced with the IMTFs and replaces the otherwise largely ad hoc planning structures and procedures that were in place
prior to the IMPP.
In 2007, as part of DPKO’s “Peace Operations 2010” initiative, the concept
of “Integrated Operational Teams” (IOTs) was introduced. IOTs were then established for each integrated peace operation to address continued concerns
about the lack of integrated support from headquarters. The IOTs combine
military and police functions (both under DPKO/OROLSI) and political and
field support (DFS) functions together to serve as information and liaison hubs
in New York for each peacekeeping mission. In the case of special political
missions, there are no IOTs, and the DPA regional division and desk officers
coordinate directly with the different headquarters departments including DFS
and DPKO/OROLSI.
17
The Limitations of UN Integration
In general, integration reforms have been aimed at improving
both the efficiency and effectiveness of UN peace operations.
Efficiency gains are supposed to result from the elimination of
duplicative administrative structures and the improved use of resources, while effectiveness is to be gained from the more coherent implementation of activities under one vision. However,
despite the considerable evolution of the integration concept
within the UN, the intended benefits of integration have not yet
been fully realized due to the structural and political realities of
the UN’s work.
First, coherence among UN actors has been undermined by differing administrative and financial systems among the UN’s funds,
agencies, and programs. Many aspects of integration policy have
moved forward faster than the “nuts and bolts” dimensions: administrative, personnel, financial, and support (including administrative fees, air services, communication/IT, safety and security, joint premises, etc.). The Integration Steering Group (ISG),
a USG/ASG-level standing body that meets quarterly to verse
UN system-wide work on integration, has been discussing these
complex issues, some of which are being addressed by the Department of Field Support (DFS) in coordination with UN funds,
agencies, and programs.
The ability of the SRSG and his deputy to integrate effectively
is also limited by the lack of incentives for UN actors outside of
DPKO’s authority to actually integrate (see Case 1 on Burundi below). Although in theory a UN country team reports to the SRSG,
in reality, they all still have their own boards and bosses in New
York or Geneva. More importantly, these actors often have their
own goals and visions that are not exactly aligned with the Security Council mandate an SRSG has been handed. In this context,
effective integration in the field often comes down to leadership
and personalities within the UN mission and UN programs and
funds represented, and to effective network-like communication.
In this regard, one of the most debated issues resulting from integrated missions is the tension between the political work of
a peace operation and the ostensibly apolitical work of delivering humanitarian aid. The commonly expressed grievance among
humanitarians is that integration jeopardizes humanitarian aid
workers’ neutrality and that their specific and immediate mission of saving lives could be subordinated to broader or longerterm political goals. A recent independent study on “UN Integration and Humanitarian Space” found that despite reforms to the
policy of integration over the last decade the debate remains
18
polarized, and stakeholders—including UN departments, funds,
agencies, and programs—should redouble their efforts to promote greater awareness and consistent implementation of policy
provisions that seek to ensure that UN integration arrangements
protect humanitarian space. They should also do much more to
build confidence across the political, peacekeeping, and humanitarian communities to help ensure that the potential benefits of
UN integration for humanitarian operations are maximized, and
the risks minimized.1
Of course, improving coherence among UN actors only addresses one part of the problem. In many conflict-affected states, the
money and activities of bilateral actors overshadow much of the
UN’s work. Such actors are not able to be coordinated under an
SRSG, and their goals might not be fully aligned with that of the
1 See Victoria Metcalfe, Alison Giffen, and Samir Elhawary, “UN Integration and Humanitarian
Space,” Independent Study Commissioned by the UN Integration Steering Group, London:
Overseas Development Institute, 2011.
19
UN mission. In this case, activities of all parties can be duplicative at best, or, in the worst case scenario, they work at crosspurposes.
Finally, the coordination that is arguably most important in a conflict-affected country is with the host government and its population. It doesn’t matter if the UN itself is fully integrated if it is not
on the same page as the people it is serving. Recognizing this,
in 2011 at the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan,
South Korea, a “New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States” was
endorsed by a large group of bilateral donors and the United
Nations. This agreement proposes a new partnership with host
countries that makes integration comprehensive by uniting all international as well as national actors behind a common vision,
thereby, ideally, overcoming some of the coherence challenges
that have often retarded progress in fragile states. Processes to
better work together with host governments and civil society, established through agreements such as the New Deal, could have
major consequences for how the UN’s work in the field is ordered
and “integrated” in the coming years.
Addressing the Humanitarian Dilemma in UN Integration
“Strategic Integration”—working together toward shared goals—does not always have to entail “structural integration,” namely actual changes in the organizational structure of the mission, where a single UN official will wear the
three hats as DSRSG, RC, and HC (i.e., deputy head of the peacekeeping or
political mission, chief development official [resident coordinator], and the
UN’s highest-ranking humanitarian representative [humanitarian coordinator]). Having decided that “form must follow function,” the UN has developed
three models for integrated missions:
• “Both Feet In”: The humanitarian/resident coordinator (HC/RC) serves as
DSRSG and OCHA is located inside the integrated mission. This model is
recommended for stable postconflict settings where the presence of the
UN’s political/military mission is well accepted. This was used in Timor Leste.
• “One Foot In, One Foot Out”: The HC/RC serves as DSRSG, but OCHA retains an independent presence, outside the main mission. Recommended
for situations where the political/military mission is more controversial. This
model has been used in the DRC and Afghanistan.
• “Both Feet Out”: The humanitarian coordinator and the OCHA office are
not integrated with the political or military aspects of the mission. Recommended for what OCHA calls “situations of persistent widespread conflict
or lacking a credible peace process.” This has been adopted in Somalia.
20
CASE 1
UN Integration and Coordination in Burundi, 2007–2010
In November 2005, the democratically-elected government of
Burundi (GoB) requested that the United Nations draw down the
military component of its seventeen-month-old peacekeeping
operation (ONUB). After a period of sounding out the views of
ONUB and the GoB, the Secretary-General recommended to the
Security Council the establishment of an integrated office, BINUB,
as the follow-on presence to cohere and coordinate the response
of the UN to the peace consolidation priorities for 2007–2008
identified with the GoB. This interim arrangement would allow for
a smooth transition from peacekeeping to a more developmentfocused engagement by the UN, and lasted until December 2010
(at which time BINUB was replaced by a small political office,
BNUB). At the time, it constituted one of the most advanced examples of integration of the UN system to date.
BINUB was built on the foundations laid down by ONUB and the
UN country team in 2006. The new leadership of the mission
used the newly established principles of the Integrated Mission
Planning Process (IMPP) and the lessons learned from the integration experience of the UN in Sierra Leone to achieve the goal
of avoiding UN fragmentation in the country. BINUB comprised
a small office with, at its head, the Executive Representative of
the Secretary-General (ERSG), also wearing the hats of resident
coordinator (RC) and humanitarian coordinator (HC) assisted by
a Deputy ERSG.
The UN country team was the humanitarian and development
component of this peacebuilding office. It included UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR, WHO, FAO, WFP, UNFPA, UNIFEM, UNESCO, UNAIDS, OHCHR, OCHA, ILO, and UN-HABITAT. The World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund also coordinated with the work
of BINUB through weekly meetings of the United Nations Integrated Management Team (UNIMT), comprised of heads of UN
agencies (UNCT) and heads of BINUB integrated sections. The
UNIMT co-chaired by the ERSG served as a structure for joint decision making and for reducing the compartmentalization of the
UN’s work in Burundi. It also allowed the head of mission to provide strategic guidance on all critical aspects of peace consolidation and define a joint UN position with the GoB and international
development partners.
Three BINUB integrated sections (Security Sector Reform and
Small Arms, Justice and Human Rights, and Peace and Governance) were responsible for coordination and support to their
21
areas of work at the national level, and they were responsible
for the implementation of Peacebuilding Fund projects and joint
programs that reflect peacebuilding priority interventions identified by the government of Burundi. All personnel of integrated
sections retained their parent organization’s contracts (DPKO/
DPA, UNDP, OHCHR, etc.), to maintain appropriate institutional
linkages and secondary administrative reporting lines to their respective organizations. To ensure the proper management and integrity of the integrated sections, all non-DPKO employees were
accorded the same rights, access, and responsibilities as DPKO
staff in BINUB, including supervisory, management, and administrative responsibilities when relevant and feasible. Some of the
key planning documents for the mission included the Strategic
Framework for Peacebuilding in Burundi (agreed between the
UN and the GoB) and the UN Integrated Peacebuilding Support
Strategy (or “conflict-sensitive” UNDAF)—with joint programs for
each of the key peacebuilding priority areas—later replaced by an
Integrated Strategic Framework (ISF).
Some of the main successes of UN integration in Burundi have
been strategic coherence, transparency in planning and programming, and inclusiveness of the GoB and international partners in
the processes. Some of the crucial elements of making integration effective, however, relied on the leadership and vision of the
ERSG, Youssef Mahmoud (who, importantly, had previously held
senior positions in DPA and UNDP), as well as the creation of
integrated teams within sections, which in spite of administrative
challenges, helped bring overall coherence to the UN’s support
to the GoB.
In “Partnerships for Peacebuilding in Burundi: Some Lessons
Learned,“ Mahmoud relates that despite notable progress in
certain areas, namely the integration of efforts at the strategic,
programmatic, and operational levels, integration proved a difficult task. Local UN country team representatives tended to be
more beholden to their respective central and regional structures
than to the lead official on the ground who was mandated by the
Secretary-General to coordinate UN responses. A related impediment was the concern that integration could lead to the loss of
the visibility of individual agencies, visibility that is essential for
resource mobilization and individual career advancement. In the
end, the integration endeavour will remain tenuous and effectively personality driven in the absence of performance incentives
that reward integration.
22
CASE 2
Decentralization, Delegation, and Coordination in a
Large, Multidimensional UN Peace Operation: Regional
Coordination in Southern Sudan
After its establishment by UN Security Council Resolution 1590
(March 24, 2005), the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS)
was set up to support the implementation of the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement between the North and South. UNMIS was thus
forced to be located in both parts of the country. Organizational
development and decentralization of the mission were challenges from the outset.
In Southern Sudan, UNMIS tackled the question of decentralization by establishing clear and detailed processes. The mission
needed to be visibly present where the people were located in
the vast country, in order to generate information as timely as
possible and to ensure horizontal communication, coordination,
and control among mission functions.
The team in Southern Sudan established clear communication
and planning routines on a monthly basis: in the beginning of
the first week the head of all military and civil functions in one
of three Southern Sudanese sectors met. These meetings lasted
nearly two-thirds of a day. Each function had to hand in reports
from the previous month and outline very concrete plans for the
following month, which were discussed transparently across all
functions. Five days of operative planning followed, focused on
how many helicopters were needed, how many cars, etc. A staff
member responsible for logistics and political affairs reviewed
each plan, as did the mission leadership.
Finally, mission security had to clear each plan. On the 15th of each
month, the plans for the following month were clear to everyone,
with considerable synergistic effects: before those routines were
established, civil affairs would, for instance, order helicopters for
a field trip to a village that would be visited by police three days
later. By engaging in a high degree of monthly coordination, the
helicopter hours were reduced by wide margins, a much larger
area was observed with fewer staff, and cross-function, highly
mobile, visible teams were ensured. All documents and a large
summarizing spreadsheet were put on a server accessible for all
heads of sections and were sent—signed by the regional coordinator—to the overall mission leadership in Khartoum. Hence, the
regional team established both horizontal and vertical control
and communication patterns. Transaction costs were reduced as
the regional coordinator had to sign the final product only once,
23
rather than having to sign off on each and every helicopter flight,
for instance. In any case, there was a buffer for unforeseen events
or maintenance.
This routine was established in one sector first, and the core team
traveled to the other sectors to train staff and adapt the mechanisms to their specific needs and resources. In the end, through
detailed organization and planning, the UN mission decentralized
heavily in Sudan, giving sufficient flexibility to the Juba offices.
24
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. UN integration is not a panacea, and organizational structures
do not solve fragmentation issues by themselves.
2. Form should follow function. Different levels of integration
and coordination may be best adapted to different realities
on the ground.
3. Organizational development is a chief function of a manager
and should always be considered. Even seemingly small gestures like well-run meetings, joint trainings, informal communication, and cross-sector secondments, can foster collaborative approaches and help entities better understand each
other’s realities.
4. Coordinate horizontally and not only vertically. This is particularly true across units, civilian-military-police components,
and with UN agencies.
5. Keep a healthy relationship between support and substantive
functions by fostering communication between these two
camps within a mission.
6. Establish and revise mission priorities as teams, and communicate the limits transparently. Defining goals together across
mission functions is key for coordination and reduces coordination costs.
7. Do not fear decentralization and delegation. A manager
should try to be present in country field offices, delegate authority to them, and visit suboffices regularly.
8. Engage in dialogue with national staff, across missions, and
with New York headquarters whenever possible and relevant.
25
SUMMARY CHECKLIST
Organizational
development
Coordination
Organization
Did I ask myself the right questions?
Do I hold regular working sessions to
define schedules/cycles, task lists, and
priorities together with my team?
Do I clearly differentiate between daily
routine meetings (day-to-day operational/reporting business) and other
strategic meetings?
Do my team and I coordinate horizontally (across units, civilian-military-police
components, and with UN agencies)?
Do I collaborate with both the substantive and support sides of the mission?
Do I follow knowledge management
procedures, including handover notes
and shared documents?
Do I take into account behavioral aspects, emotions, and the importance of
relationships when planning or implementing organizational priorities?
26
YES
NO
RESOURCES
United Nations
• Eide, Espen Barth, Anja Therese Kaspersen, Randolph Kent,
and Karen von Hippel. “Report on Integrated Missions: Practical Perspectives and Recommendations.” Independent Study
for the Expanded UN ECHA Core Group, New York, May 2005.
• Fontaine Ortiz, Even. “The Role of the Special Representatives of the Secretary-General and Resident Coordinators:
A Benchmarking Framework for Coherence and Integration
Within the United Nations System.” Geneva: United Nations
Joint Inspection Unit, 2009, UN Doc. JIU/REP/2009/9.
• Fontaine Ortiz, Even and Tadanori Inomata. “Evaluation of
Results-Based Budgeting in Peacekeeping Operations.” Geneva: United Nations Joint Inspection Unit, 2006, UN Doc.
JIU/REP/2006/1.
• United Nations Development Programme. “Results Based
Management: Concepts and Methodology.” New York, 2002.
• United Nations Secretary-General. “Decision No. 2008/24 –
Integration.” June 26, 2008.
• United Nations Secretary-General. “Decision No. 2011/10 – Integration.” May 4, 2011.
• United Nations Secretary-General. “Note of Guidance on Integrated Missions.” January 17, 2006.
Further Reading
• Agranoff, Robert. Managing Within Networks: Adding Value
to Public Organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2007.
• Bardach, Eugene. Getting Agencies to Work Together: The
Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings, 1998.
• Fineman, Stephen, Yiannis Gabriel, and David Sims. Organizing and Organizations, 4th ed. London: Sage, 2010.
• Jennings, Kathleen M. and Anja T. Kaspersen, eds. “Integrated Missions Revisited: Policy and Practitioner Perspectives.”
Special Issue of International Peacekeeping 15, No. 4 (August
2008).
• Metcalfe, Victoria, Alison Giffen, and Samir Elhawary. “UN
Integration and Humanitarian Space.” Independent Study
Commissioned by the UN Integration Steering Group, Lon27
don: Overseas Development Institute, 2011.
• Smith, Dan. “Towards a Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding: Getting Their Act Together.” Overview report of the Joint
Utstein Study of Peacebuilding, Brattvaag, Norway: Royal
Norwegian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, April 2004.
• Stewart, Patrick and Kaysie Brown. Greater than the Sum of
Its Parts?: Assessing “Whole of Government” Approaches to
Fragile States. New York: International Peace Academy, 2007.
• Straus, David. How to Make Collaboration Work. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2002.
• Weick, Karl E. Making Sense of the Organization. Oxford:
Blackwell, 2001.
• Weick, Karl E., Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, and David Obstfeld. “Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking.” Organization Science 16, No. 4 (2005): 409-421.
28
2
Leadership
LE AD E RS H I P
“A peacetime army can usually survive with good administration…coupled with good leadership concentrated at the very
top. A wartime army, however, needs competent leadership at
all levels. No one yet has figured out how to manage people effectively into battle; they must be led.” 1
OVERVIEW
We know a leader when we see one. Even if we struggle to define leadership, we recognize when we see a leader in action. The
exact combination of skills and traits that results in great leadership—a mix of art and science—is unpredictable, but certainly not
unfamiliar. There are many definitions of leadership, but they all
refer to common concepts and characteristics: self-confidence,
communication and people skills, creativity, integrity, courage,
political savvy, compassion, and humility, among others.
Leadership is often confused with management, however. Both
require an ability to get people to do things so the organization
can achieve its goals, but while management oversees the “here
and now,” leadership is expected to bring a vision for the future
and lead in times of crisis. Being a leader entails acting strategically and consistently in support of a broader vision for the organization. A leader knows how to bring about change when required and how to inspire and motivate staff to work together to
implement the organization’s strategy and its mission—especially
when that mission is being challenged. Leaders see possibilities
where others see problems. Regardless of their position in the
organizational hierarchy, they are the ones people turn to in times
of crisis.
Of course, leadership is a quality that comes more naturally to
some than to others. But no one has ever been a perfect leader
on day one. Leadership skills are developed through years of experience and training, and must be added to the palette of tools
that ultimately make a good manager.
There are also many types of leaders at many different levels in a
hierarchy. An operation such as a UN field mission—not unlike the
wartime army referenced above—requires competent leadership
1 John P. Kotter, “What Leaders Really Do,” Harvard Business Review 79, No. 11 (December
2001): 86.
32
at all levels to succeed, as well as cross-institutional leadership in
order to foster collaboration in an often fragmented UN presence
in a given country (see Organization & Coordination chapter).
The lessons for leadership in this section are not, therefore, limited to the head of mission or Special Representative of the Secretary-General, but are relevant to staff at every level of a mission.
What should you get out of this chapter?
• What makes a leader effective
• What the different leadership styles are
• How to develop leadership skills
• How to motivate people around a vision
• How to be both a manager and a leader
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
You can be both a good manager and an inspiring leader: managing and leading are largely complementary with often overlapping activities. While the manager deals with complexity and
oversees parts of the organization, the leader deals with change
and may challenge the status quo. In the United Nations, as in
many organizations, you will likely be asked to be both a manager and a leader at the same time. It is the wise manager who
knows how and when to lead and the exceptional leader who also
knows how to manage.
There is no one type of effective leader, and different leadership
styles need to be adapted to specific organizations and situations, including, importantly, crisis situations. The ability to lead
does not come naturally with an appointment to a senior management position. Leaders learn from experience, and see and
listen to the world around them—both inside and outside the
organization. The table below summarizes different leadership
styles, including their characteristics, applicability, and limitations. The more you can develop a range of styles, the more often
and more effectively you can exercise leadership.
33
Table 2.1. Leadership styles
Leadership
style
Characteristics
Contexts when
useful
Weaknesses &
limitations
Coercive/
directive
Leader gives
orders and
expects to be
obeyed
Quick turnaround
situations and
crises; dealing
with difficult
employees
Inhibits organization’s flexibility;
weakens
employee morale
Authoritative
Leader
establishes
overall goal/
strategy and
pushes people
to follow
Organization
is adrift or
undisciplined
and needs
direction and
supervision
Goal/strategy
not informed by
good ideas of
staff; goal may
have little staff
buy-in
Affiliative/
supportive
Leader listens,
affirms, and
facilitates;
“people come
first” attitude
Need to build
team cohesion;
need to raise low
morale
Employees
may not have
a clear sense
of direction or
purpose
Democratic/
participative
Leader gives
employees role
in day-to-day
decision making
Need to build
organizational
flexibility,
responsiveness,
and responsibility
May result in
indecision and
a sense of
confusion, or at
worst, poor
decision making
Pacesetting/
achievement
oriented
Leader sets
ambitious
goals and high
performance
standards
With highly
motivated
employees who
work best
independently
May feel
overwhelming
to employees
who then feel
resentful or
give up
Coaching
Leader directs
and supports:
focuses on
personal
development
Employees want
and have
incentive to
improve
professionally
Not successful
when employees
are resistant to
change; heavy
time burden on
leader
(Adapted from Harvard Business School Press, Leading People, Boston, 2006.)
The personality traits often associated with leadership are generally related to one’s ability to influence, motivate, and inspire
others. Crafting a vision and motivating others also requires the
use of certain skills though. And while you may encounter socalled natural leaders, many of these skills can be learned and
developed.
34
The following elements make up a profile of an effective leader.
Together they offer a vision of leadership a manager should work
toward regardless of his or her position in the organization. Leadership comes in many forms and must come from all levels of an
organization for that organization to achieve great things.
Visionary
The effective leader is able to craft a vision to move beyond the
status quo, a vision that is clear, focused, and easily understood,
even if the process required for its implementation is lengthy and
complicated. Most visions in large bureaucracies are simple but
require significant leadership skills to be brought to life, because
bureaucracies tend to favor the status quo. People in their comfort zone feel threatened when asked to think differently and to
change their behavior. A good vision will provide a shared sense
of values and direction to convince the reluctant ones that they
will eventually benefit from the changes that the vision will bring
into their professional lives.
Articulating a vision helps to define what desired outcomes
would look like. The ideal vision describes the desired outcomes
in simple terms, appeals to the core values of the organization,
and has clear benefits to those involved within the organization
and beyond.
In UN peace operations, committing to a joint vision is of crucial
importance, yet it is also hard to achieve. The leader has to carefully manage and balance the politics of being at the intersection between the priorities of the UN Security Council, troop- and
police-contributing countries, other UN entities, international financial institutions, and bilateral donors active in the particular
country, as well as of the host government and the local population. This, clearly, goes far beyond the challenge of crafting a vision for a single organization by itself. Thus, it is important to be
mindful of the opinions and priorities of other relevant stakeholders when deciding on the strategic direction of the mission and
communicating it effectively to these stakeholders both inside
and outside the UN family (see Communication chapter). While
a UN mission cannot take on every task nor tend to everyone’s
needs, it can assume an important diagnostic and convening role
in a country, thereby coordinating and aligning various actors’
strategies and actions, without necessarily carrying out all of the
work itself.
35
Communicator and Listener
Just as important as the ability to craft a vision is the ability to
communicate it clearly and succinctly. Even if implementing the
vision is a complicated process, explaining it should not be. People won’t support what they can’t fully understand. It is essential
that people be reminded of the vision and kept informed through
the implementation phase, of both progress and problems. Keeping people in the know helps create in them a stronger sense of
ownership in the process and therefore a greater commitment to
its implementation.
Listening is the cornerstone of communication; it allows you to
acquire knowledge, understand challenges, and read people’s
intentions. Good leaders understand that they do not have the
solution to every problem. Their strength lies in their openness
to outside ideas and their ability to integrate the experience and
knowledge of others into their vision. Failure to listen will always
result in problems later on.
36
Informal communication can be just as important as formal communication. A convincing presentation will not result in a successful outcome if one hasn’t invested the time to sit down, informally, with the stakeholders who might be opposed to the plan.
It is necessary to understand exactly what their concerns are before those concerns turn into obstacles. Personal and informal
communication is also preferable in some cultural contexts. In addition, nonverbal communication can be critically important, as
leaders’ emotional signals are closely observed and interpreted
by everyone around them. The ability to show confidence and
optimism—especially under trying conditions—is how good leaders manage to inspire and influence others.
Motivator
It has been said that in the UN, “strong leadership and the absence of leadership both have a disproportionate multiplier effect: strong leaders attract the best staff and bring out the best in
all staff. Where leadership is absent and morale poor, those staff
who can, leave. Others remain but can grow disillusioned, cynical with regard to the organization and unduly preoccupied with
their conditions of service and entitlements.”2
Motivating and inspiring staff is part of what sets a leader and
a manager apart. The leader is an enabler of staff performance.
Large bureaucracies that necessarily come with rigid sets of rules,
policies, procedures, and structures can tend to stifle creativity,
flexibility, and individual initiative. Disillusionment and cynicism
can follow. The UN is no stranger to this phenomenon. In such
work environments, it will often require serious effort from the
leadership to motivate, inspire, and develop trust among the staff.
Leaders understand how to develop an esprit de corps, unleash
the power of teamwork, and bring out the best in a group. This
requires interpersonal skills and concerted effort. One must show
that one seeks to connect with people and engage them about
their job. Remember that people are often stimulated when given
assignments outside their routine activities or when challenged
to do something above their pay grade. In some cases this can
lead to a mentoring of certain staff into developing their own
leadership skills. People also want to feel included as a part of the
whole process, from planning to implementation.
2 Fabrizio Hochschild, “In and Above Conflict: A Study of Leadership in the United Nations,”
Geneva: Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, July 2010.
37
People, however, have different capabilities, weaknesses, and potential. They therefore need to be engaged in a tailored fashion
that addresses their particular needs and interests. Encouragement may need to be given to highly competent people who lack
self-confidence, and more responsibilities may need to be delegated to the experienced to keep them motivated. Some desire
more guidance and direction than others. Understanding who on
staff needs what level of encouragement and independence is
likely to be a challenge. Engaging them about both their work
and their lives is likely the only way to figure this out. This is best
done by visiting other staff on the job informally. One cannot lead
by sitting in an office. Instead, leadership requires going out of
one’s way and one’s office to directly engage with staff.
Mediator
UN field missions, as with many multicultural environments, can
be the scene of conflict and tensions among employees. While
the UN has developed a number of internal conflict resolution
mechanisms—for example, the United Nations Ombudsman and
Mediation Services—the manager is often forced to take on an
immediate mediation role. Leadership is also held to some level
of accountability for conflicts that arise within the team.
Understanding the nature of the conflict and learning simple conflict-resolution skills help you contribute to a hospitable and fair
work environment. While the trigger to a conflict may be trivial,
the underlying reasons for animosity at work are generally broader, from poor communication to personality clashes or differing
work styles. Whatever the reason, early intervention is the key to
managing conflicts before they become crises.
• The first step in resolving a conflict is not to shy away from
it but rather to meet with the antagonists together, listen to
what they have to say, and summarize to them the problem
they have described to make sure there is common understanding.
• Next, ask each participant to describe specific actions they’d
like to see the other party take that would resolve the differences. Let the antagonists know that you will not choose
sides and that you expect the individuals to address the conflict proactively.
• Finally, assure both parties that you have every faith in their
ability to resolve their differences. Set a time to review progress.
38
See the Managing People chapter for managing staff on a day-today basis to create a supportive and collegial work environment.
Coalition Builder
Large operations that take on a diverse array of tasks, such as a
UN field mission, cannot depend on the leadership of one person but rather need a team of leaders. Managers therefore rightly
dedicate much effort to assembling and nurturing a functioning
leadership team that brings together complementary skills and
attributes.
Leadership is also about building coalitions, both internally and
externally, maintaining strategic alliances, and reaching out
across hierarchies and across cultures. Such strategic thinking requires being politically wise without becoming politically tainted.
This starts within the organization, with building a cohesive and
effective leadership team or teams, to deal with specific issues.
While a number of formal management teams exist in all UN missions and usually meet on a weekly basis, these may not always
be the best fit to respond appropriately to specific challenges the
organization faces.
You may therefore consider forming ad hoc teams—boards of
advisers, task forces, or coordination groups—to discuss an idea
before bringing it into the open, tackle specific challenges, or get
the buy-in of key stakeholders not included in formal leadership
structures. This can also be the opportunity for mid-level staff
to feel empowered and recognized. The importance of informal
teams that develop spontaneously outside of the immediate
workspace should not be discounted either.
Accountable
Good leaders make good decisions. They do this by identifying
and assessing the relative costs, benefits, and risks inherent in
every decision. They also have the skills to communicate their
decisions well. This is especially important when the decision will
have a negative impact on an individual or group of people.
As in other large organizations, in the United Nations accountability for results can be diffused and diminished across its large
bureaucracy. In the field context especially, it is often hard for
host populations to understand who within the UN is ultimately
accountable for the UN’s actions in their country. Respected and
trusted leaders, however, are those who do not just take responsibility for success, but for failures as well. They show their staff,
39
their superiors, and the outside community where the buck stops,
and often engender respect as a result. It is such leaders who
recognize that success should be shared with those who contributed to it, but one should always be prepared to take the blame
for failure alone. (See the Decision Making chapter for more on
making good decisions).
Coolheaded
Modern life is characterized by continuous and rapid change. The
United Nations itself is perpetually changing, and UN peacekeeping is often in constant crisis mode. Staff on the ground must
adjust to new political realities, new mandates, new mission configurations and sizes, as well as rapidly evolving operational environments.
Leading an organization or a team through a crisis presents its
own set of challenges. A national disaster or violent conflict
brings a high level of uncertainty, urgency, and complexity. People will turn to a leader to give them a sense of direction, calm,
and the reassurance that things will turn out for the best. In a
crisis, leaders need to be constantly visible to provide assurance
and show that they have the situation under control.
Formal emergency procedures need to be reviewed, checked,
and perhaps even tested, on a regular basis. Yet, in a crisis even
the best-laid plans need immediate adaptation to reflect the circumstances. Communication, transport, housing, office space,
water, food, etc., are all likely to be disrupted. Large organizations do an excellent job at training their staff in planning but
they rarely invest in developing good improvisation skills. Times
of crisis demand constant improvisation by leadership.
A crisis brings to the surface the most unlikely leaders. They can
be the ones who are quiet, but who have the uncanny ability to
find immediate solutions to problems. They can also be the ones
who have their own networks and will be able to find the needed
resource. Effectiveness in crisis requires recognition of these sudden leaders and empowering them, even if it means breaking the
hierarchy.
All crises are a learning opportunity and call for a postmortem
analysis to strengthen preparation for possible future crises.
Some crises are poorly handled and can also be the consequence
of a chain of human errors, poor judgment, and bad decisions. In
such an instance one should not be complacent. Rather, take the
steps to support a credible investigation to determine responsibility for mistakes made, including your own. More generally
40
speaking, crises are an opportunity to make use of the UN knowledge management resources, discussed in greater detail in the
Knowledge Management chapter. The unique stress conditions
during crises put teams, structures, and methodologies to the
ultimate test, and important lessons that may be of use to colleagues facing similar circumstances in the future can be drawn
out and preserved.
Example Setter
The UN Competency Framework has been developed as a professional development guide for UN staff. Within this framework,
integrity is identified as a core value to guide the behavior of all
UN staff. To be a leader in the UN means to be fully committed to
the highest standards of professionalism, competence, and integrity. Obviously the mission—and the UN as a whole—suffers when
UN employees betray these core values. To be a leader in the UN
means to be fully committed, in principle and in practice, to these
values, and as such, to serve as an example for other UN staff on
how to behave while guests in another country. Because of their
position in the organization, managers are more closely watched
and associated with the UN.
Managers are, arguably, more tempted. For instance, they will
have easier access to the resources of the mission. The use of
vehicles, telephones, or aircraft are all regulated through various
administrative instructions that can be taken advantage of by an
unscrupulous manager. It is critical for those in leadership positions to use their influence to set an example of the appropriate
use of mission resources and not to take personal advantage of
such resources. Managers are also sought after by officials in other organizations, in the host government and member states because of their ability to influence decisions in the mission. While
accepting invitations to meals and receptions is part of the strategic development of good relationships, no one in the United
Nations, regardless of position or level, is entitled to seek or receive any material compensation from government officials. As a
leader, you must be able to assess impartially when a meal is used
as a form of enticement, and conversely, when a small gift is a
completely innocent gesture that forms part of the local culture,
refusal of which could strain relations unnecessarily.
Personal integrity demands consistency between principles and
personal behavior. In the field context, a UN employee represents
the organization and its values whether that person is in the office at noon on a Tuesday or at a bar on Saturday night. Mistakes
made outside the office can have very real consequences inside
41
the office. As such, managers need to exemplify the highest standards of personal integrity in both the professional and the personal world. They have to scrupulously follow the standards of
the organization and be a symbol of integrity and accountability,
as the mission of the organization can depend on it.
CASE 1
Profile of a Leader: Rolf Ekéus
Early in May 1991, in the aftermath of the Iraq-Kuwait war, a discreet Swedish diplomat, Ambassador Rolf Ekéus arrived in New
York. At the request of the Security Council, he had agreed to
take on the position of Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). His job was to direct the
destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and to take the
necessary steps to prevent Iraq from rebuilding its arsenal.
Never before had an armed conflict ended with a mandate for a
civilian organization to dismantle the weapon infrastructure of a
sovereign country. Ambassador Ekéus had no precedent or best
practices to follow. He also had no budget to speak of. SCR 687,
which established the commission, demanded that Iraq finance
the cost of the destruction of its weapons arsenal. Iraq was not
a willing partner, neither in disclosing its weapons program, nor
in the idea of covering the cost of its destruction. The only asset
Ambassador Ekéus had at his disposal was a resolution that gave
him the authority to decide where, when, and what he wanted to
inspect in Iraq.
Within days of his arrival in New York, to everyone’s amazement, inspection teams were zooming in and out of Iraq, crisscrossing the country to implement Ambassador Ekéus’s vision
of how to insure that Iraq disposed of its WMDs. Member states
were knocking at the door of his office ready to provide air assets, equipment, and technical experts. Information agencies
were opening their top-secret files on Iraq weapons programs
to him. Ambassador Ekéus was a natural-born leader, and this is
how some of his former inspectors and staff remember him. “His
door was always open and there was no hierarchy to speak of in
the commission. Anyone, whatever their position, could attend
the daily 9:30am meeting where he got a briefing on the status
of inspections in Iraq, and would tell us very openly about his
meetings with foreign ministries and ambassadors. This allowed
us to understand the political context of what we were doing,”
explained one of his former staff.
42
“He could get upset for little things but never, never stressed on
the big issues. Some of these inspections brought us to the brink
of armed confrontations. If he was nervous, he kept his nerves
to himself. I knew that I could call him 24/7, and I did more than
once. He never complained.”
“He had no problem confronting the Iraqis or taking on any of
the members of the Security Council. Some liked him, but some
clearly didn’t. It didn’t matter to him. He never took it personally.
But he couldn’t manage any conflicts between the inspectors.
And there were many, especially in the mid-’90s when there was
little progress. To deal with issues like that, he designated one of
the staff he trusted as deputy director of operations. It was his
way to get away from day-to-day problems.”
“He also knew when to change course. By 1997, there was no real
progress, and the political climate had shifted. He had given it
his best shot and realized it was time to move on. Looking back
at the way he projected himself and the commission, people assumed that we had thousands of inspectors in Iraq. In fact, most
of our intrusive inspections had at most fifty people.”
CASE 2
Profile of a Leader: Sergio Vieira de Mello
Sergio Vieira de Mello had been a career UN civil servant for
thirty-four years and one of the UN’s most gifted leaders when
he died in a terrorist attack on the UN Headquarters in Iraq on
August 19, 2003.
In his study on leadership in the UN, “In and Above Conflict,” Fabrizio Hochschild indicates that although Vieira de Mello never
spent more than three years in the same position, his accomplishments were often far reaching due to his leadership skills
and his ability to gain the confidence of many different stakeholders. “From 1997 to 1999 he established the new Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), a successor to
the largely discredited Department of Humanitarian Affairs. Under his leadership it regained credibility and relevance with its
operational and Secretariat partners. From 1999 to 2002, he was
the Secretary-General’s Special Representative and Transitional
Administrator in East Timor. The UN was very poorly equipped to
take on the enormous task it was endowed with, but he quickly
won the confidence of the Timorese and managed to engineer
a relatively short transition for the country to full independence,
while laying the groundwork for economic sustainability.”
43
However, Hochschild noted that Vieira de Mello “never prioritized
focus on organizational change…[and] his attentiveness to major
stakeholder and power interests could predominate over considerations of principle.”
In her biography of Vieira de Mello, Chasing the Flame, Samantha
Power wrote that he “distinguished himself as the consummate
humanitarian, able to negotiate with—and often charm—cold war
military dictators, Marxist jungle radicals, reckless warlords, and
nationalist and sectarian militia leaders…with the moral authority,
the political sense, and the military and economic heft to protect
human life and bring peace to the unruly new world order.”
As the UN’s Special Representative in Iraq, Vieira de Mello quickly
won the respect of the US administrator, Paul Bremer, despite
tension between Washington and the UN over the US-led invasion and the poor image many held of the UN in Washington.
Power also wrote that Vieira de Mello was “the only international
official who was trusted by all five of the permanent members of
the Security Council.” Although he played no obvious part in the
formation of Iraq’s new governing council—chosen by the US-led
coalition—Vieira de Mello toured Iraq’s neighbors urging them to
give their backing to the institution.
Vieira de Mello was said to have recognized the delicate nature of
the UN’s mission in Iraq, and he had told the UN Security Council
in July that “the United Nations presence in Iraq remains vulnerable to any who would seek to target our organization.” Some
critics suggested that his perceived proximity to the US transitional administration, and particularly a June 2003 joint press
conference and photo with Paul Bremer, may have contributed
to the association of the UN with the occupying US-led coalition,
therefore making the UN a more likely target.
Vieira de Mello’s final meeting when the bomb struck the UN
compound was with two researchers whom he had kindly agreed
to meet, despite the other competing demands on his time.
44
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. There is no one type of effective leadership, and different
leadership styles will be more or less suited to certain organizations and situations, including crises.
2. Craft a vision to move your organization beyond the status
quo—a vision that is clear, focused, and easily understood.
3. Communicate your vision clearly and succinctly. Listen to
people around you and keep them updated on the implementation of the vision and challenges faced.
4. Create a motivating and trustful environment: care for people,
motivate them, and coach and mentor as needed.
5. Dedicate effort to establishing a leadership team bringing together complementary knowledge and attributes as well as
diverse views.
6. Leadership at the UN is also about external and internal coalition-building and building lateral strategic alliances.
7. Make considered decisions and take responsibility for them.
8. Lead by example and act in accordance with UN’s core values
of integrity, professionalism, and respect for diversity, in public and in private.
9. Leadership is required at all levels. Whether you are a senior
or a middle manager, leadership is your responsibility and not
only the prerogative of the senior management team.
45
SUMMARY CHECKLIST
Did I ask myself the right questions?
Personality traits
When pursuing a goal, do I maintain a positive, focused attitude, despite obstacles?
Do I strive to learn about my organization
and its stakeholders?
Do I listen actively, carefully, and fairly to
others?
Do I remain calm under pressure?
Do I empathize with other people’s needs,
concerns, and professional goals?
Crafting a vision
Do I have a clear vision and have I made it
clear to my team?
Did I gather feedback from my leadership
team, colleagues, and stakeholders before
finalizing my vision?
Does the end result of the vision serve the
interests of the organization and its most
important stakeholders?
Do I have an overall strategy to reach the
vision? Is it realistic, and is it achievable?
Motivating others
Do I keep my team regularly updated on
successes achieved to date, how they relate to the bigger picture, and some of the
challenges faced by the organization?
Do I offer feedback and recognition to
individual staff? Do I encourage their professional growth?
Can I identify those within my organization
who will support me when needed?
Do I use humor to relieve tense or uncomfortable situations?
Do I have the skills and credibility to mediate and resolve conflicts among my staff?
46
YES
NO
RESOURCES
United Nations
• Fontaine Ortiz, Even. “The Role of the Special Representatives of the Secretary-General and Resident Coordinators:
A Benchmarking Framework for Coherence and Integration
Within the United Nations System.” Geneva: United Nations
Joint Inspection Unit, 2009, UN Doc. JIU/REP/2009/9.
• Hochschild, Fabrizio. “In and Above Conflict: A Study on
Leadership in the United Nations.” Geneva: Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, July 2010.
• Peck, Connie, ed. On Being a Special Representative of the
Secretary-General. Geneva: UNITAR, 2006.
• United Nations Development Group. “RC Online: The Online
Resource for UN Resident Coordinators.” Available at http://
rconline.undg.org .
• United Nations Senior Mission Leadership (SML) courses.
Further Reading
• Arbinger Institute. Leadership and Self-Deception: Getting
Out of the Box. London: Penguin, 2009.
• Goleman, Daniel, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee. Primal
Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.
• Kellerman, Barbara. Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,
2004.
• Maxwell, John C. Smart Choices: The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999.
• Northouse, Peter G. Introduction to Leadership: Concepts
and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009.
• Waldock, Trevor and Shenaz Kelly-Rawat. The 18 Challenges
of Leadership: A Practical, Structured Way to Develop Your
Leadership Talent. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 2004.
Useful Websites
• Center for Management Research. Available at www.cfmr.
com .
• “Leadership.” The Wall Street Journal. Available at http://online.wsj.com/public/page/lessons-in-leadership.html .
47
3
Planning
PLANNING
“Wisdom is the ability to see the long-run consequences of
current actions, the willingness to sacrifice short-run gains for
larger long-run benefits, and the ability to control what is controllable and not to fret over what is not. Therefore wisdom is
concern with the future.”1
OVERVIEW
Planning is the process of identifying, through the development
of strategies, the right combination of resources and activities
that are needed to attain an organization’s objectives.
Strategies and plans are essential to connecting an organization’s
general vision of the future to its day-to-day activities. Plans help
prioritize objectives, anticipate obstacles, mitigate risk, conserve
limited resources, and chart the path toward success. Planning
takes place at three levels:
1. The political: concerning agreement on overall objectives and
resources.
2. The strategic: in the development of broad methods and in
setting the course of activities to accomplish objectives.
3. The operational: in the daily implementation in the field of the
strategic plan.
The planning of UN field missions is a complex, but indispensible practice. UN planning aims to design efficient and effective
operations toward the realization of the broad political vision
contained in a Security Council mandate. The planning process
is multilevel, multi-actor, cyclical, and often overlapping. At the
strategic level, the UN has developed a set of requirements and
minimum standards for how to translate UN Security Council mandates into planning processes that ensure coherence across all
parts of the UN system operating in the same country: the United
Nations Integrated Mission Planning Process (IMPP) Guidelines
for both headquarters and field. At field level, an Integrated Strategic Framework (ISF) is set up to plan and coordinate the work
of the mission and the UN country team.
Sophisticated coordination and communication among many actors is required at the start, from initial assessments and mission
start-up, through the length of the mission, and during mission
1 Russell Ackoff, Ackoff’s Best: His Classic Writings on Management (New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1999), p. 99.
50
reconfigurations, mission drawdown, and the ultimate liquidation
of a mission.
This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical underpinnings and basic tools for strategic planning. Even if you are not
primarily responsible for planning, this chapter will enable you
to better understand why and how UN planning works, make
informed contributions to UN mission planning processes, plan
your own work, and think critically about, update, and adapt existing plans.
What should you get out of this chapter?
• The importance of effective planning for every organization
• The different types of strategy
• The various components of a model planning process
• How to develop useful objectives
• How to conduct a SWOT analysis
• How these principles apply to the planning of a new UN mission
• How an ISF can be coordinated with other ongoing planning processes
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
“A strategy is a conceptualization, expressed or implied by the
organization’s leader, of (1) the long-term objectives or purposes
of the organization, (2) the broad constraints and policies that
currently restrict the scope of the organization’s activities, and
(3) the current set of plans of near-term goals that have been
adopted in the expectation of contributing to the achievement of
the organization’s objectives.”2 Simply defined, objectives are the
ends, and strategies are the means of achieving them.
Strategies are ways to achieve the comprehensive long-range
goals of an organization. Strategic planning is the corresponding
management function, focused on developing an overall direction for an organization within the context of the challenges and
opportunities of the operating environment, as well as the organization’s resources.
Strategies can also emerge through processes different from
the formal strategy development process. Conceptually, one can
differentiate between intended and unintended strategies and
2 Richard Vancil, “Strategy Formulation in Complex Organizations,” in Strategic Planning Systems, edited by Peter Lorange and Richard Vancil (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977),
p. 4.
51
between realized and unrealized strategies (see table 3.1). The
various combinations of these categories yield three kinds of
strategies: deliberate strategies (intended and realized), unrealized strategies (intended, but not realized), and emergent strategies (unintended, but realized).
Table 3.1. Differentiating between strategies
Intended
Unintended
Realized
Deliberate strategy
Emergent strategy
Unrealized
Unrealized strategy
—
(Based on Henry Mintzberg, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada, 1994.)
It is important to acknowledge that strategies can emerge in an
unpredictable fashion. You should strive to maintain flexibility,
continuously review, and, if necessary, update strategy.
Through planning, general strategies are translated into increasingly specific work programs and, ultimately, individual actions.
Similar to strategy, plans range from the basic to the more sophisticated. Unlike strategies, which can sometimes emerge in
unforeseen ways, plans are always deliberate. In plans, decisions
are made in advance about how to conduct your work.
Strategies and plans can be distinguished by the time horizon
to which they apply and by hierarchical levels (see table 3.2). In
terms of the planning horizon, one can distinguish between longterm plans (five years), medium-term plans (three years), and
short-term plans (e.g., one year). When breaking down strategies
and the corresponding plans hierarchically, one can differentiate
strategic planning for the organization as a whole, management
planning concerning different plans and programs within organizational divisions, and functional planning, i.e., support functions
such as administration, public affairs, etc.3
3 Henry Mintzberg, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning (Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada, 1994), p. 62.
52
Table 3.2. Strategic, programmatic, and functional planning
Time horizon
Hierarchical level
Long-term (5 years)
Strategic/Organizational
Medium-term (3 years)
Management/Programmatic
Short-term (3 months–1 year)
Functional
(Based on Mintzberg, The Rise and Fall.)
UN field missions are generally mandated by the UN Security
Council for six months to one year, renewable, and the UN General Assembly authorizes a budget allocation. The peacekeeping support account budget is annual and runs from July 1st to
June 30th of the following year, whereas the UN regular budget
that includes the financing of special political missions runs for
two consecutive calendar years, starting on January 1st through
December of the following year. Mandates and budget planning
cycles for UN field missions therefore often do not align.
In addition to the challenges this brings to multiyear planning,
different time horizons and hierarchical levels of planning also
apply. The time horizons span the life cycle of a mission, and the
hierarchical levels range from the political level down to the operational level (table 3.3).
Table 3.3. Planning hierarchy for UN missions
Time horizon
Hierarchical level
Variable time frame
depending on mandate
Political
(UNSC resolution, UNGA budget
allocation)
(decisions made on objectives and
resources)
Medium-term
Strategic
(development of the strategic plan)
(UN, Secretariat, and senior mission
leadership)
Short-term
Operational
(implementation of plan through
day-to-day operations)
(military, political, and civilian units)
53
Model Planning Process
Various approaches for strategic management and planning are
employed by different organizations, depending on their needs,
capacities, and resources. The intention here is to introduce a
“model planning process” and to subsequently offer some perspectives on the limitations and merits of such an approach, also
taking into account the specific challenges managers face when
planning UN field missions.
Strategy development and planning processes typically follow a
sequence of steps. While the terms used to distinguish the different phases are often different (note the different terms used
in UN field missions), planning processes typically must employ
the same mix of phases. We distinguish between five key phases:
a “plan for planning” phase, an objectives-setting phase, a diagnostic phase, a design phase, and an implementation phase (fig.
3.1). These five phases of the planning process cover three basic
questions for an organization: Where are we now? Where should
we go? How do we get there?
Figure 3.1. Five phases of the planning process
Plan for
planning
Objectives
SWOT
analysis
Strategy
formulation
Implementation
Where are we now?
Where should we go?
How do we get there?
(Based on Simon Burtonshaw-Gunn, The Essential Management Toolbox, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.)
A sixth phase, evaluation, can be added to this linear process,
which evaluates the question of whether we are achieving our
goals. Managers should not see planning as a linear and static
activity, but as a cyclical process that needs to be carried out
repeatedly as an ongoing responsibility (fig. 3.2).
Especially in the volatile environment of UN field missions, constant evaluation is necessary, and at times plans may have to be
adapted. Plans may need to be revised for changing and unfore54
seen realities on the ground, as well as to capture and codify
emergent strategies and bring practices in line with the intended
and expressed strategies. Given the importance of maintaining
flexible and regularly updated plans, recurring planning cycles
are usefully employed to introduce a minimum level of flexibility.
The goal of the planning cycle is interactive planning: An organization that regularly updates and improves its plans and strategies, involves staff at all levels, and ensures maximum responsiveness to internal and external changes will better align its activities
with reality.4
Figure 3.2. Planning cycle
n
s
tive
ec
bj
O
Eva
lua
tio
P l a n fo r
Planning
tio
no
ta
st i
en
c
I m ple m
ag
n
D
i
D e si g n
Plan for Planning
Before engaging in strategy development and planning, some
groundwork (i.e., a plan for planning) is required. This requires
the allocation of staff, their responsibilities, and corresponding
resources, as well as an overall organizational commitment to engage in a process of thinking about the organization’s direction.
Investing time and energy in this phase is of crucial importance
as it disproportionally affects the chances of success of subsequent phases. When preparing an exercise in strategic planning
there has to be a mutually-shared understanding of what strategic planning entails. This also includes an understanding of what
an outcome might look like, what its implications for the organization will be, and how work will be conducted.
4 Ackoff, Ackoff’s Best, pp. 106-114.
55
Important questions that need to be dealt with include the following:
• Who should be involved in the planning process?
• Could we benefit from outside input, such as experts and facilitators?
• How can transparency be upheld and outside input used productively without bogging down the planning process?
• How much time should be allocated for the planning process?
• How should involved staff divide their time between planning
and other duties?
• What are the cost implications?
• And, finally, who is responsible for leading the planning process and, subsequently, for follow through and implementation?
Objectives-Setting Phase
Having completed the preparation phase, overall goals for the
organization have to be defined. There are four key components
of the objectives-setting phase: the mission, vision, goals, and
objectives of an organization. Together, these prescribe many aspects of an organization’s future. As a result, it should be clearly
established exactly what the organization wants to achieve.
The mission statement defines an organization’s overall raison
d’être. A mission statement should contain three elements: the
organization’s purpose, its business, and its values. A vision statement should present a guiding image of what success will look
like, formulated in terms of an organization’s anticipated contribution to the broader society. Vision statements depict an ideal
image of the future, a desired end state, intended to provide the
members of an organization with an aspiration to work toward.
The broad direction expressed in the mission and vision statements is further elaborated through a detailed set of goals and
objectives. A useful standard for setting objectives, also mentioned elsewhere in this handbook, is the “SMARTER” criteria.
Objectives should be:
• Specific (target a distinct group or thing)
• Measurable (include numbers or outcomes that success can
be measured against)
• Assignable (assign responsibility to each person or group)
56
• Realistic (consider only what can actually be achieved)
• Time-Bound (have a start and end date)
• Ethical (respect the rights and interests of others)
• Recorded (track results and make available to stakeholders)
Related to the hierarchy of strategies and plans discussed above,
objectives can be defined for every level of the organization.
In the context of UN field missions, the vision, the goals, and the
objectives may not always be clearly or fully elaborated. Resolutions by the Security Council that establish and mandate a UN
mission typically list the tasks that UN planning processes must
plan for (through the IMPP and ISF, and to some degree in the
Results-Based Budgeting and section or unit work plans); however, a broader strategic vision for the country beyond the UN
presence is often not included.
The UN Charter and the mission’s Security Council mandate can
serve as important guidelines for a mission statement and strategic vision, respectively. Indeed, all activities of the United Nations
are based on and intended to further the aims of the UN Charter.
When in doubt about the purpose of a specific activity, it can
be helpful to review it in light of the aims of the Charter and the
mandate. For this reason and others, carrying a pocket copy of
the UN Charter around with you is never a bad idea.
Diagnostic Phase
Having defined the overall goals of the organization, during the
diagnostic phase, a first step toward strategic synthesis is undertaken. The main goal of this phase is to gather more information
about the organization and its environment. This knowledge can
be used in the design phase to develop strategies and plans that
pave a path for the organization to achieve its objectives and that
ensure a maximum fit with the environment.
UN planning is a complex interorganizational and political process that involves a significant number of different actors inside
and outside of the UN. It may therefore be helpful to conduct a
stakeholder analysis in order to gain a better understanding of
who key stakeholders are (i.e., which people will be affected by
the outcome of the plans and who can affect the chances of success of these plans). For more information on stakeholder analysis, see the Project Management chapter.
57
As UN field missions are increasingly tasked with carrying out
peacebuilding and peace consolidation activities, having a thorough understanding of the context in which they operate is a key
component of making sound strategies. The World Bank, UNDP,
DFID, and USAID, to name only a few, have all developed useful
frameworks for analyzing conflict. These frameworks are intended
to provide the basis for “conflict-sensitive” plans and programs;
they make clear which kind of interventions might further complicate a situation and what kind of activities may be required to
foster lasting peace. This differs from context to context.
Broadly speaking, conflict analysis is the systematic study of the
conflict profile, the causes of conflict, the relevant actors, and
the dynamics of a conflict. Studying the conflict profile means
understanding the political, economic, and sociocultural context
and related issues. The conflict profile also identifies specific geographic areas where conflict may be more intense, as well as the
history of conflict. The causes of conflict that can be analyzed
58
typically fall into three categories: (1) structural causes (i.e., root
causes); (2) proximate causes that lead to a climate conducive to
conflict; and (3) triggers—acts, events, or their anticipation—that
can set off conflict. Conflict analyses assess the interests, goals,
positions, capacities, and relationships of the actors involved in
or affected by conflict.
A useful tool to start systematically identifying strategic alternatives based on the preliminary research is a SWOT analysis (fig.
3.3), which examines the strengths and weaknesses of the organization and the opportunities and threats in the environment. As
such, it is a tool for generating a summary of the strategic situation of an organization.
• Strengths are capabilities that enable your organization or
unit to perform well—capabilities that need to be leveraged.
• Weaknesses are characteristics that prohibit your organization or unit from performing well and need to be addressed.
• Opportunities are trends, forces, events, and ideas that your
organization or unit can capitalize on.
• Threats are possible events outside of your control that your
organization or unit needs to plan for or decide how to mitigate.
The main purpose of SWOT analyses is to provide an analytical
basis for strategies that reflect reality by guaranteeing a maximum fit between the external factors of the environment and
internal factors of the organization. Strategies based on this analytical model ensure that outside opportunities are exploited by
inside strengths, while threats are countered and weaknesses
minimized.
59
Figure 3.3. Analyzing strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats
INTERNAL
EXTERNAL
SWOT ANALYSIS
Opportunities
List
opportunities
Threats
List threats
Strengths
Weaknesses
List strengths
List weaknesses
Use strengths to
take advantage of
opportunities
Overcome weaknesses by taking
advantage of
opportunities
Use strengths to
avoid threats
Minimize
weaknesses and
avoid threats
(Based on Alan Walter Steiss, Strategic Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003; and Burtonshaw-Gunn, The Essential
Management Toolbox.)
Identifying threats and opportunities in the environment is a key
step in developing strategic alternatives. This requires carrying
out research by gathering all the information available about the
context in which the organization is operating. Key components
will be the results of the stakeholder and conflict analyses, provided they were carried out. Other sources can include academic
publications, newspapers, and further internal research. The goal
is to have a clear picture of trends in the political, economic, and
social environment.
Assessing internal strengths and weaknesses is the second analytical component for the development of strategic alternatives.
Members within an organization are bound to have diverging
opinions on strengths and weaknesses; it is therefore helpful to
involve a team from various parts of the organization in carrying out this task. The goal is to get a better understanding of
the organization’s core competencies, its financial situation, its
structure, and its management culture. Given the limited control
peace operations have over their own resources, appropriately
factoring in resource constraints is of utmost importance.
As a result, it will emerge more clearly if, how, and when the organization should engage in a specific activity—in a peace operation this decision also depends, to a large extent, on the respective mandate.
Finally, when conducting a SWOT analysis, it is important to keep
in mind, that (1) not only the quantity of the factors, but also their
quality and severity matters, and (2) a SWOT analysis merely pro60
vides a snapshot, both internal and external factors are dynamic
and likely to change over time.
Design Phase
In the design phase, the objectives and analysis need to be combined into strategies and plans. Emergent strategies, by definition, are not part of this process as they evolve in unforeseen
ways, but will be discussed again below.
Strategy formulation must take into account strategic alternatives derived from the analysis phase. Not all problems can be
solved by a single strategy. Instead, strategies should focus on
specific problems and prioritize the activities and allocation of
resources of an organization. Alternative strategies can be formulated that reflect these trade-offs, trying to match the mission,
vision, and objectives of the organization as closely as possible.
Ideally, the resulting strategies will synthesize both opportunities
and strengths.
Once overall strategies have been developed, corresponding
work plans need to be devised, starting at the top of the hierarchies mentioned above, down to the level of operations and individual actions. As was highlighted above, planning is about deliberately choosing specific actions to achieve the organization’s
objectives. Numerous techniques exist that can help managers
make plans; the “critical path method” for sequencing and prioritizing actions and “scenario planning” for managing uncertainty
are explained briefly below, and literature references are included
at the end of the chapter for further details.
61
Critical Path Method
The critical path method (CPM) is a technique to analyze, plan, and schedule
large, complex processes. It helps managers determine which jobs or activities within a particular project are critical, and how to schedule jobs to meet
a certain target date at minimum costs. Even though in UN field missions few
things can be quantified and scheduled with the precision suggested by this
approach, critical path analysis can serve as a useful heuristic approach to
structure the process of planning the various activities in your mission.
START
S=0
0
20
b , 10
d , 30
0
a,0
10
50
0
c , 20
20
20
e , 20
40
40
f , 40
80
KEY
80
g , 20
critical
path
100
20
100
h,0
F = 100
early
start
d , 30
50
early
finish
job job time
identification requirement
FINISH
(Source: Ferdinand K. Levy, Gerald L. Thompson, and Jerome D. Wiest, “ABCs of the Critical Path Method,” Harvard Business Review 41, No. 5, September/October 1963.)
In essence, what the CPM entails is, first of all, listing every activity required for
the completion of the project along with a unique corresponding symbol (e.g.,
a letter), the time required to complete the job, and its immediate prerequisite
job. Each job is drawn as a circle; inside the circle the symbol of the respective activity is included as well as the time required to complete it. The graph
is drawn in the sequence of which activity needs to be completed in order for
the next one to commence. The critical path is the longest path from start to
finish and indicates the minimum time required to finish the project. This can,
for example, help identify bottlenecks. Speeding up jobs along the critical path
is the only way to speed up the time required to implement the plan.
62
Scenario Planning
Scenario planning is a creative process for thinking about the future of an organization. It was first used for military planning during World War II but subsequently spread to the mainstream in the 1970s. By systematically considering strategic uncertainties, scenario planning aims to prepare an organization
to be able deal with whatever scenario may unfold. By virtue of focusing on
what is uncertain, rather than on trying to predict the future, scenario planning
is particularly appropriate for the planning of UN field missions. Exercises in
scenario planning generally involve fifteen to thirty people and can take three
to nine months. Information collected through strategic assessments, technical
assessment missions, as well as by the mission (JMAC and other sections) can
be harnessed for the development of scenarios and inform planning.
Key
Focal Issue
Driving
Forces
Early Warning
Signals
Critical
Uncertainties
Scenario
Framework
Implications
and Options
Scenarios
Narratives
(Source: David A. Garvin and Lynne C. Levesque, “Note on Scenario Planning,” Harvard
Business School Case Study, November 2005.)
As is illustrated in the graph, there are a number of components required to
build scenarios. First, a key focal issue or critical choice needs to be identified,
which likely has long-range consequences for the organization. As a next step,
research has to be carried out, and here you should be able to capitalize on
the research carried out during the diagnostic phase. Besides stakeholders, it
is about understanding the environment. The goal is to identify driving forces—
predetermined and uncertain—and critical uncertainties that are likely to have
the greatest impact on an organization. The next step is building a scenario
framework in a 2x2 matrix with the critical uncertainties on either axis as either
present or not present. This results in four different scenarios for the future.
Subsequently, these four different scenarios and the corresponding versions of
the future that would ensue are fleshed out in detailed narratives, their implications discussed, and indicators defined that can highlight the onset of a particular scenario. Scenario planning, thus, emphasizes preparedness for many
different outcomes, rather than forecasting a particular result and prescribing
a single set of actions for an organization.
63
Implementation Phase
Of course, plans are only useful if they are used and implemented. Well-laid plans are often made irrelevant because of poor or
incomplete execution. See the chapters on project management,
financial management, and evaluation for guidelines and tools for
effective implementation.
Generally speaking, it is crucial that responsibility for overseeing
the implementation of plans is clearly assigned. Besides clarifying the supervisory responsibilities, regular reporting duties must
also be established. Reports on the progress of the implementation of plans (or lack thereof) are important initial indicators for
evaluating the success of a mission.
Evaluation Phase
Evaluation—see chapter twelve—is the element that transforms
an otherwise linear planning process into a planning cycle. Besides regular reporting, ongoing evaluation of strategies by staff
at all levels of an organization is required in order to be able to
adapt and update plans. Indeed, strategy development should
not only be driven from the top down but should also travel from
the bottom up.
This is where a field-level manager can make important contributions. Ongoing evaluation requires regularly asking yourself:
Are we achieving the goals set out in our mandate? Are there
discrepancies between our work and the strategies in the mission plan? If yes, why? Do we have to update or improve existing
strategies? Are there emergent strategies, or ways of achieving
goals, that have not been captured in the mission plan?
Limitations of Strategic Planning
It is essential to understand the limits of the effects of planning.
There are a number of factors that, when present, make planning
more successful:
• Stability of the operating environment
• Maturity of the organization, including the existence of standard operating procedures and constant structures
• Simplicity of individual steps even if managing and timing
them is complex
• Externality of control by an outside party with the power and
intent to influence and direct the organization
64
The UN, relatively speaking, does not typically enjoy many of
these features, as operating environments are dynamic and volatile, missions are temporary, not fixed operations, and control
over the direction of the organization is highly diffused, rather
than concentrated.
Yet, there are several factors—all typically present in UN field missions—that increase the necessity of planning.
• Large size: high number of personnel, machines, locations,
etc.
• Capital intensity: significant investment in resources
• Elaborate integrated structure: complex organizational arrangements
• Tight coupling: high interdependence of the organization’s
activities
A paradoxical image results when comparing these lists to the
characteristics of UN field missions, as planning UN missions can
at times seem to be both a necessity and an impossibility. Relying on a scenario-based approach to planning, which allows for
factoring in some level of uncertainty, is therefore a promising
approach, as it can prepare missions for contingencies. Periodic
re-assessments also take place at the mission level, often with
support from HQ (through technical assessment missions) in order to understand the need for changes in mandate or mission
reconfigurations. Sometimes mission shortcomings—for example, a failure to protect civilians—may also trigger an adaptation
of operational plans without changing the mandate by modifying
military deployments, modifying the Concept of Operations, or
issuing specific guidance.
Beyond the inherent challenges of planning UN field missions—
including the high degree of volatility in postconflict situations
—a number of factors specific to the UN context render this
task even more complex. Political pressures, coordination challenges, scarce resources, and competition over turf further limit
the space for planning and the certainty with which plans can be
made. In some instances, making strategies and plans public too
far ahead may reduce flexibility in negotiations with parties to a
conflict. A balance is required, however, as the mission will need
a planning basis to seek resources.
65
Overview of the Main UN Planning Tools
A Strategic Assessment may be requested by the UN Secretary-General initially—as a conflict begins, worsens, or approaches resolution—to identify all
possible options for UN engagement. The UN consults with a broad array of
actors to determine the best response by the international community, including all relevant United Nations actors; the potential host government and the
parties on the ground; member states, including states that might contribute
troops and police to a peacekeeping operation; regional and other intergovernmental organizations; and other relevant external partners.
A technical assessment mission (TAM) may be requested by the UN SecretaryGeneral to deploy to the country or territory where the deployment of a UN
mission is envisaged as soon as security conditions permit. The assessment
mission analyzes and assesses the overall security, political, military, humanitarian, and human rights situation on the ground, and its implications in relation to a possible operation. Based on the findings and recommendations of
the assessment mission, the Secretary-General will issue a report to the Security Council. This report will present options for the establishment of a peace
operation as appropriate, including its size and resources. The report will also
include financial implications and a statement of preliminary estimated costs.
An Integrated Strategic Framework (ISF) is meant to be a short document
(between ten and fifteen pages) at the strategic level that represents a shared
vision of the whole UN system in a given country (UN mission and UN country
team), with a set of agreed results, timelines, and responsibilities for the delivery of tasks critical to consolidating peace. The Secretary-General’s Decision
on Integration of June 2008 requires UN field presences operating in conflict
and postconflict situations where there is a multidimensional peacekeeping
operation or political mission or office and a UN country team to have an ISF.
Unlike the planning tools of the mission (e.g., Results-Based Budgeting, RBB)
or the country team (CHAP/CAP, UNDAF), an ISF does not reach the level of
programmatic interventions or outputs. In addition, the ISF is, first and foremost, an internal UN document.
A Mission Concept is elaborated after the Security Council delivers the mission
mandate, to provide political and operational direction, timelines for priority
tasks and activities to achieve the mission’s mandate, and related organizational and deployment structures. The Mission Concept is initially developed
by the lead department in consultation with the IMTF. Individual mission components (police, military, support, etc.) also produce their own related Concepts of Operation (CONOPs), which link the mission mandate to the execution of key objectives such as strategic intent, organization and deployment
(including timelines), security or force protection, terms of engagement, administration and logistics, and command and control.
Result-Based Budgeting (RBB) is a program-budgeting tool approved by the
General Assembly in 2000 based on the premise that a budget needs to show
what outcomes may be expected in exchange for public funds. Such measures
were intended to provide a management tool to enhance responsibility and
accountability in the implementation of programs and budgets. (See the Financial Management chapter for additional information.)
66
CASE 1
The 2010–2011 Integrated Strategic Framework (ISF) in
Haiti
The challenges Haiti faced following the January 2010 earthquake were manifold, and the presence of the UN system in the
country reflected the complexity and size of the support needed
to address both urgent short-term and important longer-term
reconstruction needs, as highlighted in a postdisaster needs assessment (PDNA) carried out by the government of Haiti. In this
context, it was essential that the whole UN system in Haiti work
together in a coordinated manner to support this effort. As dictated by the UN Secretary-General’s Decision on Integration of
June 2008, the multidimensional peacekeeping operation MINUSTAH and the UN country team developed an ISF. But while
it largely followed the IMPP guidelines, the UN in Haiti also had
to innovate in order to be relevant in a context that was different
from the usual postconflict peacekeeping environment.
The ISF process was launched at a retreat of MINUSTAH and UN
country team senior officials in July 2010, which set out the strategic direction of the UN in Haiti. Five ISF joint working groups
(institutional rebuilding, territorial rebuilding, economic rebuilding, social rebuilding, and enabling environment) were established to identify the strategic objectives, results, and division of
responsibilities—including matrices and budgets for each pillar.
This ISF was different from other “typical” ISFs in that it included
a recovery and development dimension, and in that its timeline
was eighteen months in order to align with the action plan of the
government of Haiti.
The Integrated Strategic Planning Group (ISPG), the forum in
which MINUSTAH and the country team in Haiti met on an ad hoc
basis under the chairmanship of the SRSG, provided guidance to
the ISF process. Strong leadership by both the SRSG and DSRSG/
RC/HC was required to convince some of the UN agencies (under pressure from their own headquarters) to fully buy into the
process. The consolidated draft ISF proposal was then circulated
to the whole UN system in Haiti ahead of the ISPG meeting that
would endorse it.
The Haiti ISF was also original in that it superseded and replaced
the 2009–2011 UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF)
and included a postearthquake dimension (it could therefore be
called an “ISF+”). In other contexts, the UN had generally preferred keeping a “UNDAF+” (the “+” standing for peace consolidation). While the ISF and the 2011 Consolidated Appeal for Haiti
67
(CAP) had different objectives—the former aimed to support
peace consolidation and recovery, while the latter highlighted
humanitarian needs, including the cholera response—relevant elements of the CAP were in alignment with the ISF.
Although the ISF is generally an internal UN document, in the
case of Haiti the DSRSG/RC/HC informed the prime minister of
its development, and during the course of its elaboration, discussions were held with the Ministry of Planning and other ministries
at the technical level, as well as with key international donors in
Haiti. As a last step, a meeting was organized with the Ministry of
Planning to formally present the ISF and seek the government’s
endorsement.
As part of the follow up process, a small monitoring and evaluation group, led by the ISF planning team, was constituted to
monitor progress against agreed objectives and indicators, with
M&E focal points for each ISF pillar. The review of the ISF early
in 2011 allowed UN managers to identify delays in some results
and to discuss the reasons behind these, as well as ways forward.
Accountability, however, proved to be a major challenge. As the
ISF was extended to 2012, the UN in Haiti tried to address this
specific issue by deciding on a lead agency or MINUSTAH section
for each of the ISF objectives.
Key lessons from this process are that flexibility in the planning
process and buy-in from both the country team and the UN mission are essential and often require leadership from the SRSG and
DSRSG/RC/HC. Although it was sometimes difficult to keep the
process at the strategic level, it was ultimately rewarding in terms
of building strategic coherence and getting the country team and
the mission to recognize that they share many similar objectives
and to work together toward achieving these in support of the
Haitian people.
CASE 2
Mission Start-Up in Liberia
Security Council Resolution 1509 of September 2003 authorized
the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), a multidimensional
peacekeeping operation, to stabilize postconflict Liberia. The intention was for the mission to deploy rapidly to replace a smaller
peacekeeping operation of the Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS). Given the short time frame for the deployment of 15,000 troops, 1,115 civilian police, and 607 international staff, the mission was officially established on October 1,
68
2003, but only became operationally effective in March 2004.
UNMIL’s deployment was relatively quick, yet still not within the
ninety-day deadline for rapid deployment envisioned by the Brahimi Report. UNMIL’s deployment was finally achieved, but not
without significant difficulties. A lot of the problems were preventable. Unrealistic political expectations, inadequate planning
assumptions, and poor coordination led UNMIL’s start-up phase
to be disorderly and mired with complications.
In the months after Security Council authorization, as the pace
of deployment increased, UNMIL found that it did not have the
logistical capacity to support the number of arriving troops. As
a contingency, UNMIL had to rely on support from UNAMSIL in
neighboring Sierra Leone to provide air and sealift of personnel, equipment, and other materiel, as well as support in training,
systems, and administration. UNMIL’s subpar transit camp, along
with poor infrastructure and security and a lack of key enabling
units, such as engineers, transport, aviation, and especially hospital units, resulted in the mission initially being unable to deploy
beyond the capital of Monrovia.
A number of new mechanisms intended to aid rapid deployment
were used in UNMIL. Pre-mandate commitment authority (PMCA)
provided the Secretary-General with the authority to commit up
to $50 million in funding once it was likely that a peace operation would be authorized. $48 million in PMCA was allotted to
the start-up of UNMIL, but confusion over how the mechanism
worked limited its effectiveness. Strategic Deployment Stocks
(SDS) were intended to further accelerate deployment. The extensive use of SDS in Liberia led to its rapid depletion, creating
concerns for other operations that might be mandated.
The problems of military deployment were not isolated or separate from other problems during the start-up phase, of course.
Similar problems occurred during the establishment of the civilian, security, and public information components of the mission.
In addition, key equipment and staff were also lacking in mission security. Five months into the mission, essential equipment,
such as shatter-resistant film for windows and x-ray machines,
was missing, and only 33 percent of the security personnel had
been deployed.
UNMIL’s deployment provided a host of lessons for future attempts at rapid deployment of peacekeeping missions. For instance, prior to deployment, a better assessment of the realities
on the ground and the logistics required to mount a peace operation in an environment such as Liberia could have identified the
logistical, financial, and human resource bottlenecks in advance
69
and avoided some of the ensuing difficulties. Second, even when
a short deployment timeframe is externally imposed, planning
needs to be all the more stringent in setting realistic goals. This
also involves better managing international as well as host country expectations. Finally, on the ground, such problems can be
aggravated by a lack of coordination and communication, as, for
example, when in Liberia the civilian and the military components
of UNMIL were separated by a thirty minute drive.
(Adapted from UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Best Practices Unit,
“Lessons-Learned Study on the Startup Phase of the United Nations Mission in
Liberia,” April 2004.)
CASE 3
Monitoring and Evaluation in Support of Strategic Planning: The Pilot Experience of BINUB
The United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi (BINUB) set up
a Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (JMEU) in 2009 to help
achieve the desired performance of UN programs and impact
upon peace consolidation. It was the first time that such a unit
was established in a UN mission. JMEU was essentially responsible for:
• developing indicators and benchmarks for BINUB’s exit strategy;
• monitoring and evaluating BINUB’s performance on the basis
of its mandate, and the UN Integrated Peacebuilding Support
Strategy;
• evaluating the impact of BINUB’s activities on peace consolidation;
• recommending measures with the UN Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group to enhance the effectiveness and
efficiency of BINUB.
JMEU first mapped out all the mission’s strategic and planning
documents (UNDAF+, Strategic Framework for Peace Consolidation, RBB logical frameworks, PBF projects, and BINUB mandates) to assist sections in elaborating their own individual subworkplans. JMEU then designed various tools to monitor the work
of all sections, including a monitoring framework using SMART
indicators, for short- and medium-term results. These matrices
were filled by each section on a monthly basis. This allowed standard data collection and contributed to better analyses, effective
reporting, and better planning at mission level.
70
The unit also put in place a system to collect data on all eighteen
Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) projects in Burundi and developed an
information system using a database to manage data collected
by all stakeholders involved in the implementation (UNDP, implementing partners and NGOs, private companies, beneficiaries,
etc.). JMEU also carried out field visits to Burundi’s regions in
order to collect first-hand data. Quarterly PBF progress reports
were sent to UNHQ.
This pilot experience was successful, and JMEU was asked to
share its experience with other UN missions. The systematic data
collection and analysis was indeed very useful to mission management and helped decision-making processes on planning and
management. The following factors were instrumental in the success of JMEU:
• Mission leadership was familiar with monitoring and evaluation (M&E) concepts and their added value, and highly supportive. They convened meetings with BINUB heads of sections and other stakeholders to sensitize them.
• BINUB sections were actively involved defining indicators,
targets, methods of data collection, and roles and responsibilities. This facilitated ownership and system buy-in.
• The M&E team was available and ready to discuss and “sell”
the M&E approach to all actors involved, in and outside of
the UN.
One of the challenges JMEU encountered when it was established
was the absence of a prior data collection system from 2007 to
2009. A strong M&E system is most useful when put in place at
the onset of a mission.
For more on the link between planning and M&E, see the chapter
on evaluation.
71
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. Strategies and plans are indispensable for translating a vision
into effective action.
2. Different strategies and plans are needed at different hierarchical levels and over different time frames.
3. Strategic decisions have financial implications. It is important
to take into account the relationship between objectives, budgets, strategies, and plans.
4. Planning processes are intended to answer three basic questions: Where are we now? Where should we go? How do we
get there?
5. Plan for planning by setting aside staff, resources, and time
for a planning process (as well as resources for ongoing planning).
6. When deciding on organizational objectives, apply the
SMARTER criteria: specific, measurable, assignable, realistic,
time-bound, ethical, and recorded.
7. Formulating strategies should be based on an assessment of
strategic options derived from the analysis phase.
8. Be aware of the limits of strategic planning: events do not take
place in a vacuum, and plans need to adjust to reality.
9. Aim for interactive planning and adhere to recurring planning
cycles: regularly review, adapt, and update plans in line with
changing circumstances and to capture emerging strategies.
72
SUMMARY CHECKLIST
Did I ask myself the right questions?
Strategic planning
Does everyone on my team interpret the mission mandate in the same way?
Is the mission mandate translated into a strategic plan (ISF)?
Does my individual and section or unit work
plan fit into the mission’s overall plan?
Is the plan realistic given available resources
(staff, assets, and budget)? Is the RBB coherent with the ISF?
Planning cycles .
& evaluation
Planning .
process
Does each goal or objective fit the SMARTER
criteria?
Is the plan based on a SWOT analysis?
Did I consider alternate scenarios throughout
the planning process?
Do I keep track of and regularly report on implementation of the plan (SG report, monthly
reports, individual status reports, etc.)?
Has the mission plan been adjusted based on
changes in mandate and conditions on the
ground? Are these reflected in section or unit
work plans or my individual work plan?
73
YES
NO
RESOURCES
United Nations
• United Nations. “IMPP Guidelines: Role of Headquarters.” Integrated Planning for UN Field Presences. May 2010.
• United Nations. “IMPP Guidelines: Role of the Field.” Integrated Planning for UN Field Presences. January 2011.
• United Nations. “Guidelines: UN Strategic Assessment.” May
2010.
• United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Bureau for
Crisis Prevention and Recovery. “Conflict-Related Development Analysis (CDA).” New York, 2003.
• United Nations Secretary-General. “Decision No. 2008/24—
Integration.” June 26, 2008.
• United Nations Secretary-General. “Decision No. 2011/10—Integration.” May 4, 2011.
• United Nations Secretary-General. “Note of Guidance on Integrated Missions.” January 17, 2006.
Further Reading
• Ackoff, Russell. Ackoff’s Best: His Classic Writings on Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
• Burtonshaw-Gunn, Simon. The Essential Management Toolbox. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
• Department for International Development (DFID). “Conducting Conflict Assessments: Guidance Notes.” London,
2002.
• Garvin, David A. and Lynne C. Levesque. “Note on Scenario
Planning.” Harvard Business School Case Study. November
2005.
• Grattan, Robert F. The Strategy Process: A Military-Business
Comparison. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
• Gray, Clifford F. and Erik W. Larson. Project Management: The
Complete Guide for Every Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill,
2002.
• International Alert. Resource Pack for Conflict Transformation. London, 2003.
• Katz, Robert L. Cases and Concepts in Corporate Strategy.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1970.
74
• Levy, Ferdinand K., Gerald L. Thompson, and Jerome D. Wiest. “ABCs of the Critical Path Method.” Harvard Business Review 41, No. 5 (September/October 1963).
• Mintzberg, Henry. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada, 1994.
• Steiss, Alan Walter. Strategic Management for Public and
Nonprofit Organizations. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003.
• US Agency for International Development (USAID), Office of
Conflict Management and Mitigation. “Conducting a Conflict
Assessment: A Framework for Strategy and Program Development.” Washington, DC, August 2004.
• Vancil, Richard. “Strategy Formulation in Complex Organizations.” In Peter Lorange and Richard Vancil, eds., Strategic
Planning Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977.
• World Bank, Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction Team.
“Conflict Analysis Framework (CAF).” Washington, DC, April
2005.
75
4
Communication
COMMUNICATION
Communication is a core managerial function that includes not
only the exchange of information but also the management of
information within and beyond the organization. Effective communication entails attentive listening and the clear delivery of
messages to enable a shared understanding. Effective communication within an organization and with outside stakeholders is
a key element in the successful fulfillment of a mandate. OVERVIEW
Communication is that essential tool available to a manager not
only to win support, persuade, inspire, get information, stimulate ideas, motivate, but also to deliver constructive criticism or
soothe flaring tempers. It is the tool that allows a manager to
know their team and its strengths and weaknesses.
Managing well means communicating well. Informal communication can often be as important as formal communication; how
something is communicated is as important as what is communicated.
The overwhelming diversity of UN field staff coupled with the
complexity of the environment in which missions operate makes
communicating a more challenging, but even more critical, tool.
The effectiveness of a peace operation is often contingent on a
common understanding of what needs to be done. Communicating and forging that understanding with outside partners and
stakeholders is essential in this regard.
This chapter relays the importance of strategic communications,
provides tools to sharpen your communication skills (writing,
speaking, presenting, and listening), and offers guidelines for
communicating effectively across cultures.
What should you get out of this chapter?
• What effective communication looks like
• How internal communication can be managed
• Tips for writing more effectively
• How to speak and give presentations to get a point across
• How to communicate across different cultures
78
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
Types of Communication
The nature and the flow of communication in an organization
typically mirror its structure:
• In a hierarchical environment, communication tends to be
more formal, written, and flows from the top down.
• In a flatter, less hierarchical setting, people tend to communicate more face-to-face, through informal e-mails, and up as
much as down.
Peace operations are a hybrid of the two. Although missions have
a formal, hierarchical organizational structure, UN field missions
combine a de facto flatter structure as they are composed of a
number of relatively autonomous components (military, civilian,
police). Hence communications cannot be purely hierarchical
and top-down. Furthermore, when working in a field duty station,
staff often operate in a less formal, more flexible manner, where
rank may mean less than it does at headquarters. Interpersonal
skills as much as performance can sometimes determine how a
manager relates to his or her team and allocates work.
For a manager in this hybrid environment, effective communication requires a stakeholder analysis:
• Who is my team? To whom do we relate (inside and outside
the organization)?
• What style and medium is most suitable to get my message
across?
• What are the sensitivities and constraints?
The answers determine your preferred means of communication:
formal memoranda, e-mail (using “cc” or “bcc”), telephone, Skype, planned and scripted meetings, one-on-one meals, or just a
friendly chat. The answers should also determine how you collect
information: how you listen, what you read between lines, what
meetings you decide to attend, what you delegate, and whom
you seek out for guidance.
In a complex environment, it is often useful to carry out a quick
mapping exercise, listing stakeholders you and your team are
in daily contact with on substantive matters, those in your own
organization with whom you and your team interact frequently,
and other important outside contacts in the national and international community.
79
For each stakeholder, identify the most common and appropriate
means and style of communication (fig. 4.1). For external stakeholders, that choice also depends on the sensitivity of the mandate of the mission. When in doubt, reciprocity is often the best
strategy—simply mirror how they communicate with you.
Table 4.1. Communicating with stakeholders
Immediate,
Familiar Work
Environment
Inside the .
Organization
Style: mosty informal
Tools: walk-in verbal exchanges; team meetings
without formal agenda or minutes; emails; occasionally key issues are formally documented
Style: based on hierarchy and functional distance,
varies from formal to informal
Tools: phone calls; scheduled one-to-one group
meetings with notes or minutes circulated; emails;
memoranda of understanding; newsletters; internal
rules and regulations are documented and disseminated, manuals provided
Professional .
Contacts Outside
the Organization
Style: mainly formal
Public at Large,
Customers, .
Clients, .
Beneficiaries
Style: ranging from journalistic and popular to
formal and academic, depending on the organization’s “persona”
Tools: emails; scheduled one-to-one and group
meetings with formal minutes or aide-memoirs; letters; contracts; newsletters
Tools: broadcast emails via listservers; publications;
website; social media; media releases; public events
Building Trust
Trust is the building block of effective communication. A manager can establish and build trust with his or her team by providing
them with information (e.g., summaries of the meetings he or she
attends) and encouraging them to share and discuss information
openly. The manager will consequently find that an appropriate
two-way communication establishes itself with the benefit of
constructive and often vital exchanges with the team. To establish trust, face-to-face contact is often essential, as it builds a personal relationship between people. If not feasible, voice contact
through telephone calls provides another type of contact more
personalized than, say, e-mail.
80
If there is some lack of trust between the manager and staff, information will be carefully hoarded, and only the barest minimum
will trickle down, often just in the form of policy directives and instructions when coming from the manager. From the team members, mistrust will translate into very little upward communication, as fear and uncertainty trump the desire to share honest and
critical thoughts with management. Staff will tell their superiors
only what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.
Trust can be built through different methods of communication
depending on the situation and the audience. In communicating
with individuals, one-on-one conversations and an open door
policy are important elements in establishing two-way communication. Proper attention should also be paid to respecting the
confidentiality of some conversations, as well as the identity of
the messenger when appropriate. Town hall meetings, brown-bag
lunches, or web-based methods (broadcasts, intranet, and videoteleconferences) can be more useful when addressing groups
than issuing a memorandum. Some of these meetings can also
be scheduled on a regular basis (weekly or monthly meeting) to
allow staff to prepare adequately. The choice of the language you
will use (working language of the mission and/or most-spoken
language in your audience), and of using translation or not, can
also be a determining factor in building trust and conveying your
message accurately.
Verbal Communication
Good verbal communication entails both components of a dialogue, the effective delivery of thoughts and ideas as well as
the active listening of counterparts. Communicating can only
be meaningful in a two-way exchange, hence the importance of
listening actively to others. In any operation, a decision maker
needs to make informed decisions by listening to what others
have to say, whether these are staff or external stakeholders, including, importantly, the local population.
The ability to listen is not an obvious one. It can, however, be acquired through practice and patience. To become a good listener
(and to be seen as a good listener), show visible interest through
facial expressions and body language, ask follow-up or clarifying
questions, and read between the lines by observing the speaker’s
nonverbal cues (facial expressions, tone, posture, physical gestures).
Speaking effectively is an obvious and constant, yet underdeveloped, skill. In formal interactions, involving a presentation for
81
instance, a manager, like anybody else, should prepare, practice,
evaluate, and practice again if necessary. In general, when speaking in public, a presenter should aim to:
• Simplify: Convey your messages in an easy-to-follow pattern
both in terms of logic and diction. Remember that for your
audience, listening is always harder than reading, so oral arguments must be simpler than written ones.
• Prepare: Think about possible questions from your listeners.
• Be vivid but natural: Your audience will not pay attention if
you don’t seem interested in what you’re saying. Speak with
enthusiasm, but with a natural and slow pace.
• Be concise: Concentrate on what must be said, bearing in
mind the time constraints. You should be aware of drifting
attention in your audience.
Six Tips for Presenting
1. Profile the occasion: audience (who, why, and what do they expect?), time
allocation, and location (including technical features).
2. Plan and then write out the presentation: introduction, statement of objective, outline, main points, summary, and conclusion linked to the objective.
3. Use visual aids when they will help explain or clarify a concept or assist the
audience in following along. Do not use PowerPoint as a crutch.
4.Pick the right style for your subject and occasion: fully scripted, notes, memorized, or a combination
5. Rehearse: ideally in the same location as your talk. Record and listen to or
watch your speech in full. Time your talk.
6.Deliver: introduce yourself, capture the audience’s attention, give background, objectives, and an outline of your talk. Keep a reasonable pace and
maintain eye contact with your audience. Clearly signal when your presentation ends.
82
General Tips for Running a Video Teleconference (VTC)
UN field missions rely heavily on video teleconferencing for communications
both within the mission and with headquarters. During times of financial constraints, VTC is likely to be used even more. Some basic steps can help ensure
that your VTC will be successful:
• Test the phone number and technology at least twenty-four hours in advance.
• Arrive before the start time when the on-site operator is adjusting the camera and volume and calling the other side of the VTC.
• Introduce participants and their titles or roles at both sites.
• Speak normally; avoid tapping on the desk or shuffling papers.
• Be aware of your body language; look at the camera, usually positioned on
top of the monitor, rather than the monitor itself. Don’t forget to smile.
• If there is a slight time delay, wait a moment before answering questions to
ensure that speakers on the other side have finished speaking. Be aware of
the time.
Written Communication
The skill to deliver a clear, concise, and informative message
through the written word is a surprisingly rare one. Given the
daily communication demands in a field mission, good writing
skills will always be vital for successful managers. The importance
of conveying information accurately and efficiently, internally as
well as to headquarters and external partners, cannot be overstated. Unfortunately, writing skills are often neglected in professional development training.
While in-person oral communication is critical to building trust
and sealing a deal, e-mails, memos, and reports keep track of
the decision-making process and inform others. As such, written
communication is an essential tool for institutional memory and
knowledge management. Remember that you may be succeeded
by another manager and that continuity must be insured or valuable progress (and in the worst case, trust) may be lost.
83
General Tips for Writing
• Decide on your objective—what you want to say and what effect you want
to achieve—before you begin writing.
• Brevity and clarity: Use simple but precise words. Avoid slang or clichés and
do not overuse adjectives and adverbs.
• Make your argument easily understood: Describe your points in a logical
sequence. Try to get across only one main idea per paragraph.
• Make it readable: Break up lengthy text with subheadings and highlight the
important points or recommendations.
• Accuracy: Check names, figures, and technical words.
The UN has defined guidelines for drafting some of its official
documents. When such guidelines are not available, the manager
should remember that aside from the effectiveness of his or her
style, three factors are key to effective writing: strong introduction, well-constructed argument, and tight conclusion.
The introduction should convey to the reader the objective of
the document and succinctly summarize its background. It must
present the problem or situation and invite the reader to continue through to the argumentation. Note that at times, especially
in routine communications, there may not be a resolution or an
answer needed. Nevertheless, it is always important to structure
your written communication as much as possible and to strive to
highlight relevant implications.
When constructing an argument, implementing the “pyramid
principle” can be helpful (fig. 4.2). Before starting to write, draw
a diagram of your arguments and supporting information, starting with your main point or recommendation at the top. Thinking
often works bottom-up, but writing is most effective if presented
with the thoughts progressing from the top down. For example,
your main argument (Z) should be supported by evidence or arguments (X and Y), which may need further support (xxx) and
(yyy). For more detailed resources on effective writing, see the
references at the end of this chapter, especially the guidebook,
The Elements of Style, by Strunk and White.
84
Figure 4.1. Organizing ideas in a pyramid
Z
X
xxx
xxx
Y
xxx
yyy
yyy
yyy
External Communication
Field missions have public information officers (PIO) formally in
charge of external relations. However, within the scope of their
respective mandates, field mission personnel interact with a
number of distinct external stakeholders on a daily basis, ranging from national and local authorities, political parties, and civil
society organizations to international humanitarian organizations
and the donor community. The types of interactions also vary
greatly, from conversations with villagers to formal meetings
with international and national government officials, oral presentations, or formal written materials to headquarters (e.g., code
cables, reports of the Secretary-General, and ad hoc reports) or
to donors (including reporting requirements for trust funds, the
Peacebuilding Fund, etc.).
While many of the tips for public speaking and for written communications mentioned above are relevant regardless of the context, when representing a UN field mission in an external setting,
the stakes are considerably higher. A lack of communication or
poor communication can lead to misunderstandings, mistrust,
and affect the ability of the UN mission to carry out its mandate.
If reporting to donors, it is of crucial importance that reporting
guidelines are strictly adhered to; this requires close coordination
with administrative components of the mission. When discussing
policies of the mission in public, it is extremely important to tread
carefully and avoid sending mixed or, worse, contradictory messages. It is better to promise an answer at a later stage than to
have to retract a false or misleading statement.
85
Cross-Cultural Communication
“Culture” is in part the learned values and norms that shape the
behavior of an individual or a community. In the “hypermulticultural” environment that characterizes UN field missions, communicating well across cultures is a constant necessity. Adding to
the challenge are the differing institutional cultures that can exist
between components of a peace operation (e.g., military vs. civilian or substantive vs. support).
Successful cross-cultural communication requires active listening, keen observation, and acceptance of differences. In order to
manage and get the most out of a team, it is essential to understand basic cultural divides and how to put this insight to practical use.
Culture influences how one thinks, feels, acts, and communicates.
This certainly holds true for the people you are working with in a
peace operation: no matter how different they are, they all con86
sider their thoughts, feelings, and activities to be “normal.” Their
culture gives them a frame of reference and identity that to them
is self-evident. In practice, cultural differences can lead to misunderstandings and distort communications with colleagues, as
well as with the many stakeholders of a peace operation. Understanding important differences between cultures can help you
adapt a communications strategy to different situations. The below examples highlight some basic cultural differences that can
exist between people. However, as with any generalization, no
one person or group will fit entirely into any category.
Individualistic vs. Collectivist Cultures
Individualistic cultures tend to value high achievers as role models
and reward them as such—think of the salaries paid to CEOs and
athletes. Such cultures attach less importance to group achievements benefiting society; teachers, aid workers, and nurses, for
example, are paid more modestly. They are also more likely to
prize efficiency and achievement over harmony and unity. Thus,
in individualistic cultures:
• Instructions are often concise and authoritative.
• Decisions can be made with less consultation or consensus.
• Rewards go to those with a record of individual achievement.
• Communications tend to flow top-down.
• Criticism is expressed directly and sometimes publicly.
Collectivist cultures are at the other end of the continuum. They
tend to prize relationships, group unity, harmony, and honor.
Such cultures enforce family and clan rules, rather than focusing
on individual “rights,” as group welfare is the top priority. In business, one’s duty might be to find jobs for other family members,
and merit and efficiency come second to loyalty. In politics, this is
commonly seen, as jobs and contracts are awarded to the party
faithful. Thus, in collectivist cultures:
• Talking business comes after a social relationship has been
established (e.g., talking about respective families and network of relations, showing pictures, etc.).
• Rewards are often given to relatives—that merit should always go above patronage is a value judgment, not a truism.
• Communications are group-based (e.g., presenting arguments in terms of their impact on the group rather than on
an individual).
87
• Criticism is often not expressed directly, and certainly not in
a group setting so as not to humiliate or shame; rather, it is
more important to maintain harmony.
Secular vs. Religious Cultures
Religious cultures maintain that a higher power has revealed
clear and inviolable rules and values to live by, often written in
holy texts, such as the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, the Vedas, or
other scriptures. Often the laws and institutions of these cultures
are highly informed by religious doctrine. Likewise, people from
a religious cultural background might bring their respective religious values and beliefs to bear on their professional duties and
relationships.
Secular societies are marked by the enforcement of a strict separation of religious beliefs and the affairs of the state. These societies and many of their citizens value science over faith and
emphasize their openness to a wide variety of beliefs and views.
Military vs. Civilian Culture
Staff without previous exposure to the military may find it difficult to understand or relate to those in uniform. Indeed, civilianmilitary cooperation in the field is an ongoing source of frustration for both sides of the equation. Cooperation across these two
institutional cultures, though, is part of what makes peacekeeping such a unique enterprise. Such cooperation is also a must in
order to implement peacekeeping’s most critical tasks, such as
civilian protection.
The military component of a mission tends to adhere to a strict
hierarchy, more than other parts of the mission. They also tend
to bring greater planning experience. This ingrained military culture affects how peacekeeping soldiers communicate, coordinate, and make decisions both inside their ranks and with civilian
colleagues. Obviously this can create tension with those civilians
who prioritize free thinking, consensual decision making, and
egalitarianism. Just as civilian managers need to understand the
rationale for and the benefits of a task based, loyal, and hierarchical culture, soldiers must recognize the rationale for and the benefits of a “flatter” civilian management structure and consentbased decision making.
88
Other Miscellaneous Cultural Divides
• Perception of time: Time as money, timeliness as a virtue, living as dictated
by schedules and timetables on the one hand. On the other, time as a flexible
commodity, taking time for others as respect, results accepted as objectives
but not time bound, the future as hard to define or impossible to plan for.
• Perception of space: How far away do you stand or sit when talking to
someone, when in an elevator, or on a bus? Do you perceive an office with a
window view or corner room as a symbol of hierarchical position?
• Use of language: Indirect language, circumspect, deferential, oral, flowery,
formal (e.g., Buddhist or Islamic cultures) vs. direct language, precise or
even blunt, written where possible, businesslike, informal (Western business
culture, especially languages that have only one word for “you” that does
not differentiate between level of intimacy, rank, or age).
• Nonverbal communication and body language: Show emotions or not?
Make direct gestures or not? Maintain eye contact or not? Firm handshake
or not? Bow? How deep? Point at things, or do not point? How to gesture
to “come here,” with palm of hand showing or not? Touching people, not
touching? Men holding hands or not?
Colors as symbols:
• Color for mourning: black in Europe and North America, white in Islamic
countries and Japan.
• Red: love and danger in Western countries, death in some African countries,
evil in Indonesia and Thailand (don’t use red ink).
• Green: safety in the West, holiness in the Islamic world (do not use green in
publications).
When people with such different values have to work together,
they need to understand that these differences are real, fundamental, and need to be respected. In general, it is wise to take
note of the values of the host country in this respect, and to realize that people will always act on the basis of their convictions.
This does not make them “good” or “bad.” Many customs are
rooted in faith. When communicating across a religious divide,
make sure to respect religious holidays, dress codes, dietary
rules, and the way gender relations are acted out.
Finally, it is important to remember that in the international setting of a peace operation, it is particularly difficult to make assumptions about people, as their backgrounds often reflect different, overlapping cultures. They may have been born in one
country, gone to school in another, made friends all over, lived in
different parts of the world, found partners with different backgrounds. In doing so, they have taken on the ability to transition
easily from one culture to another. Such people may treat their
parents or family in a traditional way, and use language appropriate to that setting—but in the office, or with friends, they act and
89
speak differently. Similarly, men and women may interact professionally at work, but revert to more distanced, traditional ways in
a private setting.
CASE 1
Communicating the Mandate and Managing Expectations
Achieving a common vision and understanding of what needs to
be done by the different components of a UN field mission based
on the mandate given by the United Nations Security Council
(UN resolution) can be challenging in a fast moving environment.
This is all the more challenging in times of mission start-up, reconfiguration, or withdrawal. It is therefore the responsibility of
the managers in the mission, from the SRSG down to senior and
mid-level managers to make sure that this mandate benefits from
a common understanding, is disseminated in a timely manner,
well understood by all staff, and translated into regularly revised
and updated mission strategic planning documents and section
work plans. It is also essential that the mandate be clearly communicated to other stakeholders, starting with the host government authorities at all levels.
The UN Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT) faced this very challenge in May 2010 when, following a
request by the government of Chad, the Security Council passed
Resolution 1923 mandating the withdrawal of MINURCAT by December 31, 2010. The SRSG thus organized a series of town hall
meetings with other mission leadership in the mission headquarters and country suboffices to explain the content and implications of the resolution to the mission staff. The SRSG also briefed
the diplomatic corps in Chad, the UN country team and other key
stakeholders in the country, humanitarian actors, and bilateral
donors, among others. The next challenge was to reach a common understanding with the Chadian authorities—at the national
and at the local level—on the content of the new mandate, the
differences from the previous one, and the respective responsibilities of both the UN mission and the government of Chad during this phase of withdrawal. This was essential in order to ensure
a smooth exit of the mission and avoid difficulties with the host
authorities, as had previously been the case for UNMEE in Eritrea.
The final report to the Secretary-General on MINURCAT (December 2010) highlighted how MINURCAT—prior to the decision on
the withdrawal—had suffered from the lack of a communication
strategy and was therefore unable to properly manage the expectations of the Chadian government and to some extent hu90
manitarian actors. An effective communication strategy would
have been central to enhancing confidence and reducing misunderstandings as to the mission’s role and purpose in Chad and
the northeastern area of the Central African Republic. Instead,
this lack of communication gave space for an alternate interpretation of the mandate by the host country, which raised expectations for economic recovery and development that were beyond
the scope of the security-focused mandate. The report concluded that the absence of a communication strategy impaired the
mission’s ability to narrow the gap between expectations and reality. Such a strategy must be developed at the initial stage of a
mission’s deployment.
As an attempt to avoid similar misunderstandings and mistrust
with the government of Chad during the withdrawal phase, a
number of initiatives were undertaken, including the establishment of a forum to foster dialogue and collaboration between the
Chadian authorities and their national and international partners
to reach a common understanding of roles and responsibilities on
issues relating to protection of civilians, humanitarian access, and
safety and security arrangements. The SRSG also went on a tour
of the country, together with representatives of the government
of Chad (including security forces) and humanitarian actors, to
explain to stakeholders at the local level what the new mandate
entailed, how the mission would withdraw, and what the government of Chad had committed to do for its part. Finally, a joint
government of Chad–UN high-level working group was set up to
assess the situation on the ground on a monthly basis and track
Chad’s progress toward meeting benchmarks set out in the Security Council resolution.
CASE 2
Two-Way Communication with Staff
Communicating well with staff is an essential task for a manager
to get the best out of a team. Lack of communication, especially
on issues that affect the work and the personal lives of staff, can
poison a work environment and cause irreparable damage to
staff morale, affecting staff productivity and the mission’s overall
effectiveness.
In one mission, a new director of a civil-affairs section had arrived
earlier that year, bringing hope among many of the staff that the
section would be re-energized ahead of important national elections in the country. Although few official communications had
gone from the new director to his staff in the various field offices
91
across the country, a staff retreat in the capital was the occasion
for all to meet the new director in person and to hear first hand
his vision for the section. Although the director ended up listening more than he spoke at the retreat, most of the staff walked
away with a positive impression. Sophie, an international civilaffairs officer, who had travelled from one of the mission’s regional suboffices for the retreat in the capital, was one of them.
Later that year Sophie applied to a temporary vacancy announcement (TVA) in UN headquarters, and was selected for the post
after a competitive process. Sophie felt it was the right move for
her at the time, as she had served in hardship duty stations for
the past three years, including one year in this specific duty station, and the post would constitute a promotion for her. Before
UN headquarters sent the fax to the mission asking for her release on assignment, Sophie felt she had to first inform her hiring
manager, the director. According to the UN rules and regulations,
it is the decision of the hiring manager whether or not to release
staff on assignment. Sophie therefore phoned the director and
explained her reasons. The director told her that although his
section was short on staff, he understood her motivations and
told her that, in the interest of her career development, he would
authorize her release for the eleven-month TVA.
A week later, to Sophie’s surprise, she was copied on an email
from the director to human resources, informing that he no longer authorized Sophie’s release. Sophie was taken aback given
the earlier phone conversation she had had with the director, and
decided to call him again to find out what had happened. The director missed Sophie’s call, and in the rush of daily activity, failed
to get back to Sophie that day. In the week that followed, the
director felt that because the decision had been made, there was
very little to discuss at that point. “Why open old wounds unnecessarily?”
As a result, Sophie never received an explanation from the director as to what motivated the change in his initial decision. Although Sophie forced herself to continue to work hard, her motivation was lacking. She was no longer willing to go the extra
mile because she no longer respected her manager. What the
director did not know was that Sophie could have understood
and accepted his reasons for reversing his first decision, if he had
only discussed it with her. In this case, other mutually beneficial
solutions could have even been found. For instance, the requesting office at UNHQ could have agreed on delaying her arrival to
allow the mission to find solutions to the staffing needs. Instead,
through a simple lack of communication, the director squandered
92
the trust and respect of one of his best staff members, hampering
the mission’s overall productivity in the end.
93
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. Understand your context, your stakeholders, and adapt your
communication to the audience.
2. Trust is integral to healthy, two-way communication. Look to
build and maintain trust at all times.
3. Good writing is an essential management skill. Write with a
purpose, for your audience, and keep it simple.
4. Take time to prepare presentations and make sure to rehearse—and if possible record and review—your delivery.
5. Be an active listener.
6. In intercultural settings, don’t rush to judgment. Observe, listen, look, ask.
7. Develop the skills and aptitudes that allow you to interact with
people from another culture more easily: patience, humor, humility, restraint, acceptance of contradictions.
8. Cooperation between civilian, police, and military components of a mission is essential, as it is between substantive
and support sides of the mission. Make sure to continuously
build these relationships.
9. Convey important messages and instructions both verbally—
face-to-face—and in writing (a memo or e-mail).
10.Keep an open-door policy to address individual concerns and
complaints.
94
SUMMARY CHECKLIST
Understanding your .
context
Effective writing
What is the objective? What do I want to say,
and what effect I want to achieve?
Do I know my audience?
Communicating
across cultures
Supervising .
staff
Have I done a proper stakeholder analysis and
drawn a communication map?
Effective speaking
& presenting
Did I ask myself the right questions?
Who are my contacts inside and outside the
organization? What style and medium is most
suitable to get my message across?
What are the sensitivities and constraints?
Am I brief and clear?
Does my argument flow logically, and is it easily understood?
Have I prepared and rehearsed my presentation accordingly?
Can I stay within the time limits I’ve been given?
Do I share information with my team? By email, in regular staff meetings, in informal settings?
Do I listen to my staff enough, and do I know
their concerns?
Do I speak to them individually on a regular
basis?
Do I develop and maintain contact with people
from another culture easily?
Do I actively attempt to build relationships
across civilian, police, and military components
of the mission? Across the support and substantive sections divide?
95
YES
NO
RESOURCES
United Nations
• United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations and
Department of Field Support. “Guidelines on Drafting Correspondence for DPKO Political Affairs Officers.” May 1, 2008.
Further Reading
• Adler, Nancy J. and Allison Gundersen. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western College Publishing, 2002.
• Alisjahbana, S. Takdir. Values as Integrating Forces in Personality, Society and Culture. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaysia Press, 1966.
• Harvard Business School Press. Communicating Clearly. Boston, 2009.
• Harvard Business School Press. Face-to-Face Communications for Clarity and Impact. Boston, 2004.
• Solomon, Charlene and Michael S. Schell. Managing Across
Cultures. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.
• Strunk, William Jr. and E. B. White. The Elements of Style.
Harlow, UK: Longman, 1999.
96
5
Managing People
M A N AG I N G
PEOPLE
“There is no substitute for getting the right people into the right
jobs, at the right time, and only for the time that is necessary.”1
OVERVIEW
Managing people is about empowering and motivating staff to
perform at their highest level, individually and collectively. It requires exceptional communication skills and constant diligence
to ensure that the work of each staff member—and the unit as a
whole—is both satisfactory and sustainable.
With more than 7,200 international and 25,000 national civilians
deployed in thirty peacekeeping and special political missions
worldwide, alongside approximately 100,000 uniformed personnel, the majority of the United Nations’ peacekeeping budget in
2011 was devoted to personnel costs. While member states expect those resources to be managed efficiently and effectively in
support of complex mandates, UN personnel—many of whom toil
in dangerous and isolated contexts six or seven days per week—
expect to be treated fairly and supported well by member states
and UN management. International civilian staff in peace missions, who today represent 45 percent of the UN Secretariat, reasonably expect opportunities for career development and mobility, training, and appropriate contracts and conditions of service
that reflect their service in hardship locations and their status as
international civil servants.
Managing people is always a challenge, but even more so at the
United Nations. National and international civilian personnel work
side by side with military and police. The workforce is in constant
flux as personnel join and stay in a mission for different periods of
time. The quality of personnel also varies in skill, experience, and
motivation. A mission’s mandate can change every six months.
Conflicts between field staff arise easily in a culturally and linguistically diverse work environment, where staff are under additional stress and often separated from family. To top it off, conditions
of service are based on grade and status, and the promotion system is often centralized, extremely slow, and bureaucratic—thus
allowing managers little scope to influence the advancement or
compensation of the staff they supervise. The UN manager thus
typically has great responsibility coupled with little authority.
1 United Nations, Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations [Brahimi Report],
UN Doc. A/55/305-S/2000/809, August 21, 2000.
100
Managers are called on to understand the capabilities, talents,
strengths, and weakness of each employee to make them work
as a team in support of the goals of the mission. The success of
managers depends on their ability to organize, supervise, mentor,
and inspire staff toward common projects in spite of the diversity
of the work force and the inherent complexity of the operational
context.
This chapter follows up on some of the key concepts discussed
in the previous chapter on communication. It provides suggestions on how to become a manager that others want to emulate:
the manager who acts with integrity, delegates appropriately, respects staff, improves staff performance, mentors, and fosters a
collegial atmosphere in the office.
What should you get out of this chapter?
• How to communicate with your team
• How to use available management tools
• How to reward good performance and improve underperformance
• How to prevent or resolve staff conflict
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
To be a successful manager of people, one has to create a supportive work environment and motivate staff to perform their
best. Managers that know how to do this are said to have “people
skills.” They create a work culture and atmosphere that will help
their staff excel and get along well with others in the organization. They are not overly friendly but know how to relate appropriately to the various groups in their environment.
Important facets of successful people management covered in
this chapter include the following:
• Open dialogue with staff: Make a conscious effort to be accessible to your staff, to treat them as individuals whose
opinions are valued and respected. Involve them in decisions
and delegate when appropriate. Take the time to speak to
them individually.
• Know how to use management tools made available by the
organization: Understand and convey the usefulness of job
descriptions, terms of reference, vacancy announcements,
unit work plans, individual work plans, and performance appraisal systems (e.g., e-PAS). The latter is especially impor101
tant when trying to address poor performance.
• Know how to link performance with positive incentives and
negative consequences: Look for ways to reward good performers. Write email congratulations or publicly recognize
staff for a job well done. Document poor performance in
formal tools such as e-PAS and Performance Improvement
Plans.
• Respect the private life of your staff: Today, approximately
70 percent of international staff in peace missions have either
a dependent spouse or child in their household. Understand
that your national and international staff have a life outside
the office and duty station, and that time off enhances performance at work. Encourage staff to take their leave and
rest and recuperation (R&R) entitlements.
Empowerment Through Information
As discussed in the previous chapter, staff are empowered and
their performance enhanced when they feel that their manager
keeps them apprised of changes within the broader organization
and their teams. Access to information is of prime importance
and managers are a key conduit for the transmission and circulation of information.
Managers gain information through a range of means. They attend meetings with senior leadership and other managers of the
mission, as well as meals and receptions outside the mission.
They also interact with people from other parts of the organization and have access to e-mails and reports on various issues that
are routinely circulated to managers.
Yet, managers often tend to keep information to themselves, if
only because sharing information takes time. This is often counterproductive. Hoarding information creates an atmosphere of
distrust and uncertainty that inhibits good performance. For staff
to stay motivated, they need to understand the “larger picture.” It
is the duty of managers to transmit all information that is broadly
relevant to the goals and tasks of their team, understanding, of
course, the need for confidentiality of certain sensitive information—particularly with regard to the risk of leaking of documents
and forwarding of e-mails by both international and national staff.
Thanks to the Internet and e-mails, organizations now overwhelm
their staff with information. They therefore assume that the information is disseminated, available, and understood by all. This
works for most routine matters, but information regarding chang102
es in the mandate, policies, procedures, etc., are not always clear
and can be the source of misunderstanding between managers
and staff, especially in the UN setting where English or French are
not native languages for many employees.
A staff meeting and an open discussion is the most effective tool
to share important information. These meetings should invite differing perspectives and create an opportunity for debate. Open
exchange of communication lets everyone feel heard, and helps
managers better understand the concerns of their staff.
Times of mission reconfiguration and drawdown can be particularly challenging in terms of communication about future employment in the organization. Uncertainty about the future can
exacerbate tensions within the mission or lead to the premature
departure of staff during critical times. Staff management issues
need to be addressed with a maximum degree of transparency
and predictability and include regular communication with staff.
Occasionally it is helpful to meet outside of the office atmosphere
for a day or two, given how consumed managers and staff typically are with day-to-day work. Retreats are good brainstorming
opportunities when defining common working goals or solving
problems.
People Management Tools
Job description
All employees of an organization are recruited on the basis of a
job description that describes the tasks and responsibilities of
their position and the minimum required experience and qualifications. The employee may, however, be asked to perform tasks
outside of that job description. This can happen because the
manager loses sight of an employee’s responsibilities, but it can
also result from many other factors: operational exigencies, revised policies and guidelines, the availability of new technologies,
etc.
When this happens, it is the responsibility of the manager to discuss with the staff member the changes in the job and what the
employee might need to be able to meet the new requirements
of the position. If additional skills are required, training courses
could be considered. It cannot be assumed that staff will implicitly understand and adjust to new requirements, or will acquire
the new skills and competences on their own.
103
Performance appraisal system
Every successful organization has a system to evaluate the performance of its staff. It is incumbent on the manager to understand the importance of the performance management system in
place in their organization and to diligently implement it.
The purpose of performance management tools is to recognize
good performers, to retain them in the organization, and to facilitate their promotion. Performance management is also a valuable
(but underused) tool to correct poor performance, and in the
worst-case scenario, to penalize or dismiss staff who are chronic
underperformers. The system is also expected to foster ongoing
communication about individual objectives and methods.
The Electronic Performance Appraisal System e-PAS:
The UN’s main tool for performance appraisals is the e-PAS. According to the
e-PAS guidelines, the e-PAS enshrines performance management principles of
work planning, ongoing feedback, a midpoint review, and an end-of-cycle appraisal against agreed-upon objectives. E-PAS was designed to improve overall organization performance by encouraging a high level of involvement and
motivation, increasing staff participation in the planning and delivery of work.
The e-PAS system faces a number of limitations to its effective use, however.
The weaknesses of the UN’s administrative justice system make it difficult for
managers to address clear cases of gross underperformance through the ePAS tool. For good performers, there is a lack of correlation between e-PAS
outcomes and career advancement. Given the often centralized UN recruitment system and anonymous testing procedures, the actual implications of
e-PAS reviews are limited. As a consequence, e-PAS evaluations tend to be
carried out as a formality, with evaluations generally positive and uncritical.
Performance appraisal systems typically include three basic components: (1) unit work plan, (2) individual work plan, and (3) endof-cycle appraisal.
1. Unit work plan
When preparing a unit work plan, it is the responsibility of the
manager to share drafts with members of the unit. A team discussion should be facilitated to ensure that everyone in the team has
provided input to the plan, and that there is shared understanding of what the unit is expected to achieve and how this will contribute to the overall mission of the organization.
Changes in the mandate of a mission can affect the work plan of
a unit and it is the responsibility of the manager to sit with staff
and review possible changes in the work plan of the unit. Regardless of any changes in the work plan of the unit, it is important for
the manager to review the unit work plan with staff on a regular
104
basis.
2. Individual work plan
Each employee must understand how their task contributes to
the success of their unit. The individual work plan is like a contract that captures the goals to be achieved by the staff member
during the reporting period. Such clarity decreases the likelihood
of a misunderstanding and opens the door for a continuous dialogue between managers and staff on how to achieve individual
and team objectives.
Every employee should have a work plan, including Under-Secretaries-General. Their compacts are important enough to be published so that every staff member is aware of what the leadership
of their department has committed to deliver.
The best work plans outline so-called SMART goals—specific,
measurable, assignable, realistic, and time-bound. SMART goals
avoid confusion and make clear what the benchmarks used to assess performance will be. (See the chapters on planning and on
evaluation for a more in-depth treatment of SMART and SMARTER goals).
3. End-of-cycle appraisal
Finally, it is important to take overall stock of what has been
achieved during a work cycle. What progress has been achieved
by the group? Has the unit work plan been implemented? How
has each individual contributed to the achievements of the group
(i.e., have individual work plans been fulfilled)?
This should be a holistic exercise and also take into account previous feedback given during the implementation stage, for example during a midpoint review. As such, there should be a comprehensive conversation between a manager of a unit and staff
about the accomplishments of the previous period.
As a result, every member of the organization should have a clear
idea of their individual and collective performance during the
prior period. Gaps in performance will have been identified, and
measures can be taken to improve performance during the next
cycle.
How to Manage Performance?
Being an effective manager requires finding a balance between
the use of positive and negative reinforcement in managing staff
performance. The basic challenges for a manager in the UN are to
identify rewards for good performers, to find ways to help under
105
performers improve, and to find a place for chronic underperformers. The following are some helpful tips to manage performance.
Give clear guidance and measurable performance criteria
With few exceptions, employees want to excel in their job, expect
their contribution to a project to be acknowledged, and want
their supervisor to recognize their performance.
As such, managers need to explain clearly their expectations for
their staff. When employees are not clear about what they are
supposed to be doing, it can create a spiral of underachievement
and miscommunication. This can be avoided if time is dedicated
to explain clearly to the staff what they are expected to achieve.
Keep written notes on the performance of your staff
Solely relying on one’s memory to monitor the performance of
staff is not advisable. Positive and negative events, compliments
and complaints should all be documented when they occur. Written records of performance greatly facilitate the completion of
the performance appraisal at the end of the recording period. In
case of disagreement between a manager and a staffmember,
the notes will be invaluable as the basis for a discussion.
Rewarding good performance
Although the tools available to address staff performance are
limited in the United Nations (i.e., managers cannot raise the salary of or promote good performers), the reality is that there are
other ways for a manager to recognize achievement.
In the UN, higher performers need exposure and more responsibilities to get promoted. A good manager will look for special
assignments for the best performing staff and give them the opportunity to participate in projects that will open doors for them.
Managers should look for and make available special training opportunities for their best staff. Although everyone requires and
deserves training, high achievers are often uniquely keen to learn
new skills, and a range of training opportunities, inside and outside the UN, are available to staff. Such trainings increase one’s
marketability for future positions. Trainings are also an opportunity to meet colleagues from other duty stations and create a
network to help find the next post.
Building someone’s reputation is another way to reward performance. Expressing praise to other managers outside the work
unit may never make it back to the staff member, but can be
very important. Essentially, this is how reputations are built and
careers are made.
106
Addressing underperformance
Working with highly motivated and high-achieving staff makes
the life of a manager easy. It is when employees fail to perform
that the manager’s skills are truly tested. Such a situation requires
skillful intervention that has to take the form of one or possibly
several conversations. The goal of this intervention is for both the
supervisor and employee to understand exactly why the performance has been deemed poor (see the above section on giving
measurable performance criteria), and what the underlying reasons for the poor performance could be. The interaction should
be an open dialogue, not a written communication, and it should
not take a threatening or overly critical tone.
Very few employees are ineffective in every respect. It is critical
to recognize all positive aspects of the performance before looking into the problems. Upon reviewing performance, it is essential
to reference the job description of the position and the goals of
the work plan in order to clearly establish which aspects of per107
formance have been lacking.
Remember that sometimes outside circumstances will affect performance. Managers need to consider any difficult family circumstances experienced by staff. Problems at home easily bleed into
the work place. If an employee has a sick spouse, for example, or
a child care problem, the manager and staff can work together.
Finally, a written record of what was discussed and agreed upon
should be kept. You should agree upon and write down the steps
to be taken to bring the performance up to the level of expectations, as well as decide on a schedule for future meetings to
review the performance again.
Addressing persistent underperformance
If at the end of a reporting period, after corrective actions have
been attempted, performance has still not improved, the manager should inform the staff member that the poor performance
will be officially recorded. The manager should also contact the
Chief Civilian Personnel Officer (or equivalent) in their mission,
the Field Personnel Division (FPD), or the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) in New York to determine what the
best course of action would be.
In most cases, consistent poor performance is the result of a mismatch between the ability of an employee and the demands of
the position. It does not necessarily mean that the staff member
cannot find another position in the organization better suited to
his or her qualifications.
Employees’ Private Lives
Diversity is one of the principles of the United Nations. Respecting
diversity is thus quite important. This requires making an effort
to understand the background of staff and how that background
can affect their approach to their work, manager, or fellow colleagues. Know staff members’ backgrounds and personal circumstances within appropriate boundaries. People feel insulted when
their name is mispronounced. This can be especially the case for
national staff. Asking about the health of a sick spouse or how
children are doing builds trust and shows an interest in the employee as a whole person, not just as someone who can do work
for you.
Of course, the reality of life in the field is that many people work
together and socialize together, regardless of their grades or
ranks. The isolation of many duty stations can foster an intimacy
and friendship between supervisors and staff. Everyone attends
108
the same party, shares lodging, plays sports together, and develops relationships. This comes with risks. One’s reputation can
be damaged by only the smallest incident. Managers are always
in the public eye or in the eye of their staff, so they must always
behave appropriately. Managers should also avoid creating the
perception that they always socialize with a few select staff. Sharing lodging with your staff is also not advisable.
Finally, managers should foster an environment that balances
work and personal lives. Dedication to any job has limits, and
“leave” is a basic entitlement of the job. Respecting the staff’s
private lives is important and doing so will inspire trust and loyalty. It can also improve productivity and overall quality of output.
It is a management failure to request staff to stay late in the office
every day, unless exceptional circumstances absolutely demand
it.
The UN provides additional time off to most of its international
personnel in nonfamily duty stations in peace missions in recognition of the difficulties and stress that derive from prolonged
family separation and isolated living conditions. Managers have
to organize and plan their work and the work of their team accordingly. Showing no empathy for family concerns or only reluctantly accepting requests for leave will result in low motivation or
staff resorting to using sick leave instead.
The UN’s Recruitment System
As indicated above, there are institutional challenges which make
the UN a particularly difficult organization in which to manage
people.
The revised global UN staff selection system is intended to speed
up individual recruitment processes through standardized job
descriptions and vacancy announcements, coupled with the
development of rosters of pre-assessed candidates for various
job profiles. The concept behind rosters for field missions was
to meet strict UN recruitment standards requiring global competitive processes, while also filling vacancies quickly through
pre-assessed candidates that could immediately be brought on
board. As of December 2011, there were about 10,000 candidates
on the field rosters managed by the UN Department of Field Support (DFS) across all occupational groups, functional titles, and
grades.
While managers in field missions sometimes participate in substantive assessment of candidates to be placed on rosters, in
practice, a manager in the field often has limited authority in re109
cruitment decisions. It is, however, incumbent on the manager to
understand the rules and procedures of recruitment, which can
help reduce frustration and facilitate filling a vacant post.
• Seek a detailed, in-person briefing from your local UN human
resources office. Even if you served in UN peace missions
before, there are new changes and, in some cases, improvements to the UN recruitment system.
• If you are seeking to fill a vacancy, ask human resources for
the list of pre-vetted candidates on both the field and HQ
rosters, and for the CVs, or Personal History Profiles, of those
that meet the requirements of your vacancy. Informal reference checks are strongly recommended, and then a selection should be able to be made without any further formal
assessment.
• If you are participating in an assessment process, take a training course in the interview process to be familiar with the
competency-based system used. Understand the UN requirements for evaluating candidates.
In addition to “recruitment,” a number of other mechanisms exist
that are used to staff field missions, including temporary assignment, mission assignment, secondment, or loan. For further guidance on recruitment, refer to the UN’s administrative instruction
staff selection system and to the online UN Human Resources
Handbook listed in the resources section below.
Addressing Workplace Conflict
The stress and the isolation of field missions create conditions
where conflicts can easily arise between staff. Your success as a
manager will be measured in great part by your ability to manage
relationships and conflicts.
Managers at the UN are expected to be familiar with the basic UN
guidelines against discrimination, harassment, and abuse of authority, as well as know how to handle internal disputes and disciplinary matters. An understanding of the functional immunities
that are applicable to United Nations employees is also essential.
Take the lead in attending seminars on awareness of unacceptable conduct.
There is zero tolerance in the United Nations on any aspect of
sexual exploitation and abuse. As a manager, you have an obligation to address any complaint regarding prohibited conduct. Failure to do so is considered a breach of duty. It can lead to administrative or disciplinary action against you. Some problems can
110
be solved informally in a noncontentious manner. Others, such as
a complaint of sexual harassment, demand a formal investigation
of the facts. The procedure is not simple and has to be followed
rigorously.
In general, make sure that your behavior is beyond reproach, that
it is never abusive or the source of conflict. Losing one’s temper
is the clearest sign of poor people management skills.
CASE 1
Addressing Staff Dissatisfaction: The Experience of a
New Head of Civil Affairs
The position of chief of the civil affairs section was Mark’s first
field assignment. He was in charge of supervising a team of five
international civil affairs officers, deployed in ministries and government agencies, and seven national staff who supported the
work of the section. The civil affairs officers had been working in
the field for a number of years and brought considerable handson experience in their specific area of expertise.
Determined to be successful in all aspects of the job, Mark had
taken the time prior to his deployment to take a training course
on performance evaluation. His first step, he knew, was to update
the work plan of the section. The SRSG had explained to him they
had made some progress toward stabilizing the security situation, and it was time to refocus the work of the civil affairs section
toward governance and economic development.
He asked the most senior staff of the section to prepare a draft
work plan that would be circulated and discussed during a meeting with all staff in the section. However, the first two meetings
did not result in much progress. The revisions of the work plan
proposed by the staff were purely cosmetic. Everyone was defending tooth and nail the need for their presence in their individual ministry. Each of Mark’s ideas was immediately opposed,
while the national staff remained silent.
At the third meeting, the discussion steered away from substantive matters to the topic of performance appraisals. It soon came
out that no one in the section believed that the system was fair or
could help their career. On the contrary, they saw the system as
a potential threat. Positive ratings did not matter; however, negative ratings could be used to support non-extension of contracts.
The national staff, who until then had remained silent, mentioned
a rumor that the mission was downsizing and that the appraisals
would be used as a tool to decide “who stays and who goes.” One
111
national staff member added that according to a reliable source,
Mark had been brought from headquarters to cut staff.
All this turmoil came as a shock to Mark. At headquarters, few
perceived the appraisal system as a threat. The General Service
staff he had supervised never gave him the feeling that their livelihoods depended on him. But he now understood the reluctance
of the international staff to alter the work plan. The five civil affairs officers had experience in specific areas and changing the
work plan could be interpreted as a way to render their work
redundant.
Mark’s first priority was to work on developing an atmosphere of
confidence and trust. There was no way he could develop new
projects if the team saw it as a potential threat to their professional and, in a way, personal lives.
He explained to his staff that he was not sent to the mission with
a secret agenda. In reality, they had a complete misperception of
the way headquarters functioned. Headquarters had the ability to
develop complex administrative processes but lacked the ability
for personnel planning. There was no plan to cut the number of
posts and no plan to downsize the staff of civil affairs. Among his
staff there seemed to be an aura of mystery about the budget
of the mission and the approved staffing. It occurred to him that
no one in the section had ever seen them. He explained that the
budget of the mission was a public document, available on the Internet, and recommended that everyone took the time to read it.
“Clearing that hurdle was the key stepping stone for establishing a working relationship with my staff,” explains Mark. “It was
obvious that they doubted what I was telling them, but the fact
that I could substantiate what I said with the budget was a major
help. I couldn’t make them change their mind on their perception
of headquarters, but, at the same time, they couldn’t ignore the
reality of the publicly available budget.”
The last two meetings proved to be more productive. “The civil
affairs officers had known that the section needed to refocus itself in new areas, and had excellent suggestions once they didn’t
feel that suggesting a new project would mean the end of their
contract. The reality of this work is that the skills are transferable,
especially as the staff was mostly involved in the management
part of the projects,” Mark said.
On another subject, Mark couldn’t help but agree with the team’s
assessment that UN performance appraisals do little to help their
careers. At the same time, however, it was the only tool available,
and it was to their advantage to invest time and effort in their
112
preparation. Says Mark, “I believe it was important for me to validate their belief with regard to the usefulness of the performance
appraisals. There was no point for me to sell them a bill of goods
and tell them that a performance appraisal that made them look
extraordinary, unique, brilliant, etc. was the way for a promotion.
Actually, I explained that managers tended to be skeptical of rave
reviews. A more realistic and honest assessment is probably more
appreciated when applying to other positions.”
Finally, new ideas came up and were incorporated in the work
plan of the section. The revised work plan of the section then led
to the drafting of the individual work plans.
“I explained to my staff that I will keep notes of each person’s
performance throughout the year, so that if I get compliments
from their ministry about them, I will remember what was said. Of
course, if I get complaints, I will also keep notes, but I explained
that I would show them the notes—positive and negative—before
finalizing the report. We’ll see how that works.”
CASE 2
Organizing a Job Fair for National Staff During Mission
Drawdown
After the government of Chad requested the withdrawal of the
UN Mission, MINURCAT, and the UN Security Council set a timeline for the end of the mission’s mandate, mission leadership understood that the premature closure of the mission could cause
economic hardship for more than 500 national staff that would
lose their jobs. As such, MINURCAT sponsored and organized a
four-day job fair to help the UN national staff connect with local employers and ultimately find employment after the mission’s
closure. Seventeen international and Chadian companies and organizations registered for the fair.
In parallel to the job fair, the mission also hired a consultant to
train the national staff on how to create or set up a small-scale
enterprise, and the mission’s integrated training section staff organized trainings on information technology, building a resume,
and competency-based interviews ahead of the job fair. The National Staff Union was involved at every stage of the process, and
a general meeting with national staff was held early during the
planning phase to address staff concerns and clarify expectations.
Some of the key lessons from this experience included:
• Organizers of a job fair should plan for time ahead of the
113
event to orient staff and employers, and for employers to
prepare listings of vacant positions and required qualifications.
• Two shorter job fairs in separate locations—one in the capital
and one in the eastern part of the country—could have better
responded to staff needs than one centralized job fair.
• Evaluation forms should have been prepared for better follow-up on interviews conducted and offers made during and
after the fair.
While only eight staff members received job offers as a result of
the event and another fifty had follow-up interviews in the month
following the job fair, the initiative was very well received, and the
mission continued to follow up with employers past its liquidation period until the end of April 2011.
The combination of capacity-building programs for national
staff and the organization of a job fair, accompanied by regular
communication to staff and active involvement of national staff
representatives, contributed to a smooth transition process and
mitigated some frustrations. This MINURCAT experience also informed the subsequent organizing of a job fair in Burundi during
the downsizing of BINUB.
114
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. Every staff member needs an individual job description.
2. Develop your unit work plan. Discuss it regularly with your
staff.
3. Take time to review each staff member’s work plan with them
individually.
4. Keep written notes on staff performance for the end-of-cycle
appraisal.
5. Share information with your staff and listen to their concerns.
6. Make time for one-on-one coaching and mentoring.
7. Provide training opportunities to recognize staff for high
achievement.
8. Respect the private time and the diversity of your staff.
9. Understand the HR administrative rules and regulations.
10.Know in detail the UN policy on harassment and discrimination.
115
SUMMARY CHECKLIST
Communicating
Did I ask myself the right questions?
Do I share information with my team? By email? In regular staff meetings? In informal settings?
Do I listen to my staff enough, and do I know
their concerns?
Do I speak to them individually on a regular basis and not always about work?
Do I have every staff member’s job description
or TOR?
Respecting .
work-life balance
Managing .
performance
Have I discussed the unit and individual work
plans with staff?
Do I follow deadlines for the performance appraisal systems?
Do I provide regular feedback to staff on my
team?
Do I reward good performers on my team? By
e-mail? Publicly?
Do I respect the private life of my staff and follow working hours?
Do I encourage staff to take their leave or R&R
according to a pre-established schedule for the
unit?
116
YES
NO
RESOURCES
United Nations
• United Nations. “A Guide to Resolving Disputes: Administration of Justice in the United Nations.” New York, 2009.
• United Nations. “Human Resources Handbook.” Available at
www.un.org/hr_handbook .
• United Nations Office of Human Resources Management.
“United Nations Competencies for the Future.” Available at
www.un.org/staffdevelopment/pdf/competencies_booklet_
en.pdf .
• United Nations Secretariat. “Performance Management and
Development System.” UN Doc. ST/AI/2010/5, April 30, 2010.
• United Nations Secretariat. “Prohibition of Discrimination,
Harassment, Including Sexual Harassment, and Abuse of Authority.” UN Doc. ST/SGB/2008/5, February 11, 2008.
• United Nations Secretariat. “Reporting of Suspected Misconduct.” Information circular. UN Doc. ST/IC/2005/19, March
24, 2005.
• United Nations Secretariat. “Staff Selection System.” UN Doc.
ST/AI/2010/3, April 21, 2010.
• United Nations Secretary-General. “Civilian Capacity in the
Aftermath of Conflict.” UN Doc. A/66/311–S/2011/527, August
19, 2011.
• United Nations Secretary-General. “Practice of the SecretaryGeneral in Disciplinary Matters and Possible Criminal Behavior, 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.” UN Doc. A/64/269, September 8, 2009.
Further Reading
• Bruce, Anne. How to Motivate Every Employee. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2002.
• Drucker, Peter F. The Effective Executive: The Definitive Guide
to Getting the Right Things Done. Oxford: Elseviers, 2007.
• Harvard Business School Press. Harvard Business Review on
Managing People. Boston, 1999.
• Peters, Thomas J. and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. In Search of
Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row, 1982.
• Shula, Don. Everyone’s a Coach: Five Business Secrets for
High Performance Coaching. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan/
117
HarperCollins, 1995.
• Silverstein, Barry. Managing People: Secrets to Leading for
New Managers. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
• Stoddard, David A. and Robert J. Tamasy. The Heart of Mentoring: Ten Proven Principles for Developing People to Their
Fullest Potential. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2003.
118
6
Decision Making
DECISION
MAKING
Effective decision making is a defined process that helps identify and select the best action among several alternative options,
based on a goal and an evaluation of possible consequences.
OVERVIEW
Some decisions are relatively simple and inconsequential. Others
are important and can involve several complex and interrelated
factors, such as:
• uncertainty or lack of information;
• high risks;
• multiple stakeholders; or
• unexpected consequences.
Pressure to make decisions comes from within the organization
to move projects forward and to advance careers, and it comes
from the external environment to respond to events and to stay
relevant. Sometimes large bureaucracies limit a manager’s ability
or will to make decisions. Some organizational cultures are highly
risk averse; they discourage the taking of initiative and they provide no reward for making good decisions. However, the reality
of the work environment is that managers cannot escape responsibility.
Every decision involves risk. Uncertainty can never be completely
eliminated. Decisions are always taken with incomplete information and a degree of unpredictability about future reactions. However, a good decision is not an accident. Learning about decisionmaking processes can help you to reduce uncertainty, optimize
the level of information about available options, and increase the
probability of success.
With these difficulties in mind, the best way to make a complex
decision is to use a defined process. Sometimes making a decision is a lengthy process. Sometimes, decisions have to be taken
fast. But even quick decisions require the assessment of alternatives, as every situation offers options to be considered. Part of
the decision-making process should also be sound record keeping of how and why decisions were taken. As a manager, you are
accountable for decisions you take. Keeping notes is essential in
order to be able to revisit decisions at a later stage.
This section presents tools that will help improve your decision122
making process and, hopefully, the quality of your decisions.
What should you get out of this chapter?
• How to define a problem
• How to decide on the best process to make a decision
• How to generate alternatives
• How to communicate a decision
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
Decisions usually impact various parts of an organization, if not
the organization as a whole, and can affect a large number of
people, within and outside the organization. For this reason, decision making requires “systems thinking”—understanding how
things influence one another.
Few decisions can be taken alone. This is not only because in
large organizations many are formally involved in the decisionmaking process, but also because decisions need to be implemented, and implementation almost always entails the combined
efforts of various people. Consulting stakeholders in the decisionmaking process typically facilitates implementation.
A systematic decision-making process helps you proceed through
the critical steps that should lead to a sound decision. With an organized approach, you are less likely to miss important factors,
and more likely to make a good decision.
In the UN, most managerial decisions unfold over time. However,
when crises do occur, speed of action might be a determinant
of success. For example, political unrest that creates a security
threat for a mission might need to be handled quickly. Humanitarian crises rarely happen overnight, but an unpredictable catastrophic event, such as an earthquake, demands the ability to
gather information and evaluate options in a short period of time.
Having in place a decision-making process can be of tremendous
help in such circumstances.
A sound approach to decision making should include the following steps:
1. Define the problem and the goal.
2. Select a decision-making process.
3. Generate alternative options.
4. Communicate and implement the decision.
123
Define the Problem and Your Goal
The first step is to define clearly the issue that needs to be addressed and what you want to achieve with your decision. There
are several tools that can help to specify the problem. The simplest one is the “five whys”: ask “why” at least five times to try to
find the source of the problem.1 The answer to the first “why” will
prompt you to ask another “why,” and the answer to the second
“why” will prompt another, and so on. This is a simple and quick
tool to help you get closer to the root cause of a problem.
For more complex problems, a good tool is the cause and effect
diagram, also called a fishbone diagram.2 If you are in a group,
this is a useful tool to capture the results of brainstorming.
There are four steps to drawing a fishbone diagram (fig. 6.1):
1. Identify the problem: Write the problem in a box on the right
hand side of a large sheet of paper. Draw a line across the
paper horizontally from the box. It will look like the head and
spine of a fish.
2. Identify the major factors involved, including those that may
contribute to the problem. Draw lines off the spine—the bones
of the fish—for each factor, and label them (e.g., people, processes, lack of equipment, external factors, etc.).
3. Identify possible causes: For each of the factors you considered, add possible causes of the problem that may be related
to the factor. Show these as smaller lines coming off the bones
of the fish. Each cause may be further broken down into secondary causes.
4. Analyze your diagram: By this stage you should have a diagram showing all the possible causes of your problem, and
you can use it to investigate the problem at hand. However,
factors rarely have equal weight, and although the fishbone
diagram may help you identify factors, the analysis should differentiate and prioritize factors by order of importance.
1 The “five whys” technique was originally developed in the 1920s by Sakichi Toyoda, the
founder of Toyota, considered the father of the Japanese industrial revolution.
2 This is also known as the Ishikawa diagram, after Professor Kaoru Ishikawa, who pioneered
quality management in the Kawasaki shipyards in the 1960s.
124
Figure 6.1. The fishbone diagram
CAUSE
Equipment
Process
EFFECT
People
Problem
Secondary
Cause
Primary
Cause
Materials
Environment Management
Select a Process
There are at least three factors that influence the choice of how
to make the decision:
1. The importance of the decision: the higher the importance,
the more you are likely to involve other people in the decisionmaking process.
2. The level of commitment: the more people need to agree with
the decision, the more you should involve these people in the
decision-making process.
3. The amount of time: the more time you have, the more opportunity you have to involve others.
Making a decision without consulting anyone is more efficient
but rarely the best course of action. It may be good practice to
make a decision alone, but only when:
1. You have more expertise on the subject than others.
2. It is a familiar situation that you successfully addressed in the
past.
3. Your colleagues will accept your decision.
4. There is little time available.
The above factors should inform which decision-making process
to use. The Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision model (fig. 6.2) is a decision-making tree that can help the manager to identify the appropriate process. The options could be summarized as follows:
• Autocratic: You make the decision and inform the others (A1),
125
or you make the decision once someone provides the needed
information (A2). In this case, nobody else is involved in the
decision making.
• Consultative: You make the decision, but you may individually ask for opinions (C1), or you make the decision after gathering a small group to solicit other perspectives (C2).
• Collaborative: A group makes the decision together and your
role is to facilitate a consensus (G2).
Figure 6.2. The Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision model
1 Is the quality
of the decision
important?
YES
2 Is team
commitment
important to
the decision?
YES
3 Do you have
enough info to
make the decision
on your own?
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
A1
NO
YES
NO
A1
4 Is the problem
well-structured?
YES
NO
YES
NO
C2
5 If you made the
decision yourself,
would the team
support it?
6 Does the
team share
organizational
goals?
7 Is conflict
within the
team over the
decision likely?
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
A2
NO
C2
YES
NO
G2
C2
YES
NO
YES
NO
A1
G2
YES
A2
YES
NO
YES
NO
C1
A2
G2
C2
(Source: “The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision Model,” available at www.mindtools.
com . Based on Victor H. Vroom and Philip W. Yetton, Leadership and Decision
Making, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973; and Victor H. Vroom and Arthur G.
Jago, The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988.)
126
If you think a group process is appropriate, the decision-making
group should have a good representation of stakeholders. You
should think of the following questions: Who has information that
might impact my decision? Who needs to be involved in this decision in light of its implementation?
A few points need to be considered when forming a decisionmaking group:
• Choose no more than five to seven people—a large group
slows down the process. You can still consult with others
without involving them in the decision making.
• Participants should be selected on the basis of their ability to
contribute, not their rank alone.
• Don’t exclude those who might disagree with you—group dynamics can help work through disagreements.
Remember that the setting of meetings can influence the participants. The venue can affect the relationship between the manager and the team, and the dynamics of the discussion.
• Manager’s office: Reminds everyone who is in charge and
who will have the final word in the decision. Best used when
the situation requires a quick decision and few people need
to be consulted.
• Conference room: Conveys the message of an open and
equal discussion.
• Rotating venues: Can create inclusiveness when decisions
impact on a diverse group of stakeholders that need to be
part of the decision-making process.
• “Off-site” location: There is a natural tendency for people to
be more open and relaxed when they are out of their regular environment. Off-site venues can facilitate honesty when
the participants are at different levels of the organizational
hierarchy.
When it comes to organizing the meetings, the decision maker’s
skills of holding a series of efficient meetings are put to task.
Using a facilitator can make meetings more productive, particularly when the problem requires the input of a large number of
participants and a succession of meetings. The facilitator does
not take part in the decision and can keep the discussions on
track, manage the time, the logistics, and manage emotions and
tempers. Provided there is one in the mission, the best practices
officer could be a good choice for a facilitator, especially since
127
he or she is immersed in the wider UN knowledge-management
framework.
Basic Rules for Decision-Making Meetings
• Provide background: Participants should have a background paper or note
concerning the problem, objectives, and different courses of action as articulated by the manager.
• Introduce the problem: The manager’s role is to launch the discussion with
a summary of the problem, the various options, and the benefits and risks
of each in a neutral tone.
• Set out a timeline: The manager has to provide the deadline for getting to
a decision.
• Manage the agenda: Meetings should stay on topic and not turn into an opportunity for participants to advance their own agenda.
• Keep records: Notetakers should be designated at each meeting to prepare
a summary of the discussions, record decisions, and follow up action.
Generate Alternatives
Every situation has alternative options and effective managing
entails spending time generating and considering alternatives.
This is the step when you should gather all necessary information: ask questions; gather documents; explore past lessons from
similar cases (i.e., lessons learned); seek advice from those who
addressed a similar problem in the past, such as your predecessor or someone in another mission; or commission analysis if time
allows.
If you are using a consultative or collaborative process, brainstorming is a common method to generate alternatives. In a
brainstorming session participants informally discuss creative
ideas and solutions to the problem to open up new possibilities.
Given the different experiences and knowledge around the table,
it can be useful to ask the participants to come up with alternative solutions from their own perspective. Everyone should be
encouraged to contribute, regardless of their rank or position in
the organization. Different perspectives can bring new facets of
the problem to light. There should be no criticism of ideas during a brainstorm, as criticism stunts creativity and openness—the
very purpose of brainstorming. Alternatives should be evaluated
only at the very end of the session.
The review of the available alternatives is a tricky process. Emotions and preconceived ideas can hinder rational thinking. Humans have the tendency to filter information in a way that sup128
ports their established point of view. There is also an inclination
to favor the option that is the least disruptive and most familiar. As mentioned above, this is common in large bureaucracies,
which can make managers risk averse or discourage them from
taking new or innovative approaches to problems.
It is important to approach the decision systematically through a
dispassionate assessment of each alternative with regard to the
overall objective. For this process, it can be useful to keep in mind
the following factors:
• Cost: Most alternatives have some difference in costs or potential savings.
• Resources: Some alternatives might require additional staff
and equipment. An alternative that relies on the recruitment
of more people is always more difficult to implement, requiring additional funding and time.
129
• Time: Getting results faster is often necessary.
• Risks: All else equal, the less risky the alternative is, the better. Risks can be political or financial, as well as related to
security and the overall reputation of the mission.
• Acceptance: All else equal, an alternative is more desirable
when it is acceptable for the largest number of stakeholders,
especially if their support is needed for successful implementation.
• Political considerations: Often the mission must consider local political factors, as well as the dynamics of the region,
including the interests and views of other international organizations, or among members of the Security Council.
• Ethics: Decisions always need to abide by the code of ethics
of the organization and relate to the mission’s overall mandate.
It can be helpful to use a grid to organize your thinking. You can
list your alternatives as rows on a table, and the factors to consider as columns; for example, costs, resources, time, risks, etc. You
then score each alternative/factor combination, weight this score
by the relative importance of the factor, and add these scores up
to give an overall score for each option.
Sometimes, it can be useful to draft a brief that summarizes the
alternatives and the arguments for the final decision. When decisions have important implications, the manager should always
make sure that there is a record of how and why the decision was
made. When time does not allow the record to be made at the
time of the decision, it is best to write a note as soon as possible
after the event.
Implement the Decision
Once the decision is made, the manager needs to communicate
the decision and the next steps for the implementation. Duties
and tasks should be assigned accordingly.
The communication, whether through an interoffice memorandum, a code cable, an administrative instruction, a policy directive, etc., should include the following:
• the objective of the decision;
• an explanation of the alternatives considered and the benefits, and risks if present, of the one chosen;
• the participants in the decision-making process;
130
• the list of tasks and the assignment of roles to implement the
decision; and
• the time frame for implementation.
Decisions made at higher levels in the organization will often require a hierarchy of subordinate decision making until tasks at
the operational level can be implemented. The chapter on project
management provides tools for the implementation phase.
CASE 1
Changing a Decision Is Always Possible
On June 10, 1999, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution
1244 authorizing an international civilian and military presence
in Kosovo and reaffirming the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). It also placed Kosovo under an interim
UN administration (UNMIK). Suddenly, the United Nations was
de facto responsible for the gamut of governmental services in
Kosovo, including the maintenance of law and order.
Making a Decision Unilaterally
The UN Office of Legal Affairs made a decision on its own that
the legal system of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would remain applicable in Kosovo under the administration of UNMIK.
However, the decision soon proved unacceptable to the local
population.
Tony Miller was sent by headquarters to become the legal adviser
of the mission and to implement OLA’s decision. “As far as I was
concerned,” he explains, “the United Nations had no choice but to
follow the Hague Regulations of 1907. They require the ‘occupying power,’ in this case the United Nations, to respect the laws in
force prior to the occupation. Now, how could the United Nations
possibly not follow international legal standards?”
Two days after his arrival, Tony had his first meeting with the
Joint Advisory Committee on Legislative Matters (JACLM), which
was constituted by local lawyers and UNMIK representatives. The
local lawyers threatened to stop all cooperation with UNMIK over
the issue of applicable laws.
“The decision had not only upset the local judiciary but had put
me at odds with the SRSG who was furious at New York for not
understanding what the idea of keeping the FYR judicial system
meant to the local population. A number of these laws had been
discriminatory vis-à-vis the Albanian Kosovars,” Tony says.
131
Looking for Alternatives
“It took me a few weeks to realize that this wasn’t going to work
and that I needed to find a solution that was acceptable to the
major stakeholders—the local population. But, the idea of going
against international law standards was anathema. I also had in
mind the larger consequences for the United Nations,” he says.
“What made me change my mind was spending time with the
local lawyers and listening to their experience of living under discriminatory laws. I realized that the law couldn’t be an abstract
concept. It had to take the reality of people’s lives into consideration. This time, I knew that I had to consult with the local judiciary to propose a solution acceptable to both the SRSG and the
Office of Legal Affairs in New York.”
However, any alternative solution had to take into consideration
the Hague Convention of 1907. A deviation from international law
carried the risk of the United Nations creating a precedent that
could impact other operations.
After a few weeks of considerable negotiations, the JACLM accepted a compromise. The laws in force prior to March 22, 1989,
when Kosovo had lost its autonomy would be applicable together with the regulations promulgated by the SRSG. This meant
that The Hague Convention was respected. Laws promulgated
by the FYR after March 22, 1989, when Kosovo lost its autonomy,
could only be applied, if necessary, as long as they were consistent with eight specific international human rights conventions.
This enabled UNMIK to say that no objectionable law since March
22, 1989, would remain on the books.
Tony concludes by saying, “I learned from that experience that
the local legal system has to be consulted in any reform. If the
proposals are too ‘alien’ to the local conditions and political reality, they won’t be accepted and their adoption will cause more
problems than they solve.”
Communicating and Implementing the Decision
The Office of Legal Affairs in New York accepted the recommendation of UNMIK to endorse the consensus reached between the
mission and the local judiciary. The decision was then implemented through the promulgation of various regulations at the local
level.
132
CASE 2
Rationalizing Decision Making During the Haiti Earthquake Response
On January 12, 2010, Haiti was hit by a devastating earthquake
that killed more than 200,000 people in Haiti and left 1.5 million
homeless. The UN suffered the largest loss of life in its history
that day with the collapse of the headquarters of its Stabilization
Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) in Port-au-Prince. Despite the death
of more than 100 UN employees, including the mission chief, Hédi
Annabi, and his deputy, Luiz Carlos da Costa, the mission was
able to make a significant contribution to the postearthquake
rescue and relief efforts.
With the government of Haiti crippled by the earthquake, and
massive amounts of assistance made available by the international community, effective coordination, prioritization, and decision
making were essential to the disaster response. In part, because
no process had been developed to deal with decision making
during such a scenario, precious hours were lost figuring it out
ad hoc. It took nearly two weeks for a mechanism to be created
to respond to this critical need. In the end, MINUSTAH, in coordination with OCHA and other key partners, established a Joint
Operations and Tasking Centre (JOTC).
Utilizing resources and information provided by the key partners,
including the government of Haiti, the JOTC provided a common
situational awareness of the prevailing security and humanitarian
situation. The JOTC also became the single point of contact for
requests for military or police assistance in support of humanitarian relief operations (e.g., transport and logistics support; escort
and area security support; infrastructure and technical support).
Rationalizing the decision-making process of the mission thus
enabled country-wide coordination and avoided duplication of
support efforts. Priorities were set by the humanitarian coordination mechanism—i.e., the clusters, humanitarian country team
(HCT), and humanitarian coordinator (HC)—while the military
and police received, validated, and prioritized requests from a
single source: the JOTC. It was partly through the creation of this
decision-making process that the mission, despite the depletion
of its own capacity, made its greatest impact on the critical recovery efforts of the difficult weeks and months that followed.
133
Figure 6.3. The Joint Operations and Tasking Centre in Haiti
Requestor
Request (Formulate)
• Transport logistics
• Escort/area security
• Infrastructure/technical
COORDINATION
R
Humanitarian
Clusters
and/or HC
Decision point
• Does the request meet cluster
strategy/priorities?
• Is there civilian capacity available?
R
Official registration
• Receive, log, clarify
MINUSTAH
regional office
R
R
JOTC
MINUSTAH military,
police, logistics, JMAC,
humanitarian, logistics
cluster rep, OCHA
CMCoord, U9
R
R
Provider
Provider at
regional level
JOTC plans and
coordination cell
• Humanitarian principles
• Meets overall
humanitarian priorities
• Last resort
• Capabilities, capacity, availability
Prioritization
Review
Committee
• Reviews requests
• Recommends decision
to SRSG
Provider priority
1. MINUSTAH military
2. UNPOL
3. JLOC
4. Other
(Adapted from: MINUSTAH, “Joint Operations & Tasking Center: JOTC,” presentation by Teresa Encarnação.)
134
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. Having a method to make a decision usually leads to a better
decision.
2. Clearly define the problem and what you want to achieve, before making an important decision.
3. Select a process to make a decision based on the specifics of
the problem.
4. Don’t forget to take advantage of a brainstorming meeting to
generate creative ideas.
5. Evaluate ideas at the very end of a brainstorm.
6. Keep in mind costs, resources, risks, acceptance, and political
and ethical factors when you make a decision.
7. Keep a written record of the deliberation when possible.
8. Communicate the decision to all who might be affected by it.
9. Assign responsibilities and deadlines for implementation.
10.Remember to follow up on the implementation, as you, the
manager, remain ultimately responsible for the outcomes.
135
SUMMARY CHECKLIST
Define the problem and the goal
Did I ask myself the right questions?
Did I identify the problem at hand?
Did I define what my solution is intended to accomplish?
Did I ask “why” at least five times to try to find the
source of the problem?
Is my decision of high importance?
Decide on a process
Do many people need to agree with my decision?
Do I have a lot of time to make the decision?
Given the answers above, did I opt for an autocratic, consultative, or collaborative decisionmaking process?
If a group process is appropriate, did I think of
whom I need to talk to?
Did I identify who can provide useful information
for my decision?
Implement .
the decision
Make the .
decision
Generate .
alternatives
Did I gather all necessary information?
Did I explore lessons learned from similar cases?
Did I seek advice from experts, headquarters,
other missions, etc.?
Did I commission analysis?
Did I conduct a brainstorm for creative ideas?
In reviewing the alternatives, did I consider and
weigh the importance of costs, resources available, time, risks, level of acceptance among stakeholders, political factors, and ethics?
Did I draft a note to summarize the alternatives
and the final decision?
Did I communicate the decision?
Did I clarify the tasks and responsibilities?
Did I establish deadlines for implementation?
136
YES
NO
RESOURCES
United Nations
• UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service and Gretchen Sidhu.
Intergovernmental Negotiations and Decision Making at the
United Nations: A Guide, 2nd ed. New York, 2003.
Further Reading
• Bazerman, Max H. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
• Hammond John S., Ralph L. Keeney, and Raiffa Howard,
Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Life Decisions. New York: Broadway Books, 1999.
• Harvard Business School Press. Harvard Business Review on
Decision Making. Boston, 2001.
• Harvard Business School Press. Making Decisions. Pocket
Mentor. Boston, 2008.
• Hoch, Stephen J., Howard C. Kunreuther, and Robert E. Gunther. Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons, 2001.
• Kaner, Sam et al. Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory DecisionMaking. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
• March, James G. A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions
Happen. New York: The Free Press, 1994.
137
7
Time Management
TIME
MANAGEMENT
Time management is about planning and exercising conscious
control over the allocation of time across all activities so as to
improve individual and organizational efficiency.
OVERVIEW
A common complaint among managers everywhere is that they
do not have enough time in the day. In particular, a number of
uncontrollable factors often frustrate the ability of managers in
UN field missions to properly allocate their time. Unanticipated
crises that require immediate attention are a day-to-day staple.
Different time zones between headquarters and the field further
complicate the matter. Priorities can shift quickly depending on
needs in the field or demands from headquarters.
The introduction of continuous and instant means of communication tools like smartphones—designed to save time—sometimes
do the opposite. Instead of providing more time for creative
thinking and planning, instant communication and time-saving
devices have created a situation where unplanned and fragmented activities, all labeled as “rush,” clash with the need for managers to spend time developing plans and thinking creatively.
Effectively and efficiently organizing time is the essence of good
management practice. It is an indispensible skill to achieve professional and personal goals and to increase personal productivity. Time is a finite resource distributed equally to all human beings. The whole world functions on the same twenty-four hours
per day, but the way time is used and perceived is not universal.
Time management can reflect personal, educational, and cultural
habits.
Like most things, time management may be improved by certain skills, tools, and techniques that can be developed. But it requires self-awareness and self-discipline to develop and stick to a
system that allows for the appropriate allocation of time among
long-term projects, planned, and unexpected activities.
In this chapter you will learn about ways to analyze and monitor how you spend your time, work more efficiently, and improve
your overall performance.
140
What should you get out of this chapter?
• How to set up a calendar of goals and priorities
• How and when to delegate
• How to run effective meetings
• How to avoid procrastination
• How to deal with distractions and interruptions
• How to manage your files and your paper, e-mail, and phone communications
• How to prioritize tasks and work with a to-do list
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
Goal-Based Time Planning
Any plan to allocate resources strategically must begin with an
understanding of what one hopes to accomplish. Describing and
defining goals and objectives can be empowering and will help
you prioritize your time better. Once your goals and tasks have
been specified, it makes sense to enter them into a calendar (see
simplified version below) that can be reviewed and updated on
a regular basis.
Figure 7.1. Defining goals and scheduling time to achieve them
Goal A: Preparation of budgets by Sept. 30, 2011
Task
Activity
1
Send memorandum to
each section chief to
request input
Deadline
Feb. 1, 2010
Chief of budget to
prepare draft
Tasking
2
Follow up on submissions
of inputs
Jan. 28, 2010
Personal assistant
to follow up
3
Review of submissions
Feb. 10, 2010
Myself
Goal B: Attend high school class reunion on June 1, 2011
Task
Activity
Deadline
Tasking
1
Request leave
April 1, 2011
Myself
2
Purchase plane ticket
April 1, 2011
Myself
3
Designate and brief
officer-in-charge
May 20, 2011
Myself
141
Goals become a guide to set up priorities and tasks to be accomplished on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. SMARTER goals1
help managers decide whether a project should be delegated
and allow them to devote more time to long-term projects or
focus on the achievement of more important goals.
Four common categories of goals are organizational, work unit,
career, and personal. Organizational goals are outside of the control of an individual manager. In the United Nations, these goals
are mandated and need to be achieved within a fixed schedule,
leaving little scope for flexibility. Examples of organizational
goals in UN field missions that impact on all managers and that
require careful time management include:
• preparation of the mission budget;
• preparation of reports of the Secretary-General;
• preparation of performance appraisals; and
• participation in mandatory training courses.
When preparing reports to the Security Council, the drafting can
often only be carried out in a certain sequence, making efficient
time management critical.
Work unit goals are the responsibility of individual managers.
Managers need to continuously review work processes in light of
goals to identify strengths and weakness in the way business is
conducted within their unit. The time trap created by a proliferation of nonessential tasks must be tackled. A first step is for a
manager to define SMARTER goals to provide direction, vision,
and a sense of common purpose, and to give everyone in the
work unit a clear understanding of what is expected from each
staff member.
Unlike most work unit goals, career goals are specific to each
individual. They are essential in an environment where mobility is
encouraged, yet is often a challenge. A goal-oriented approach
will translate into time set aside to acquire new skills, refresh old
ones, keep a network of professional contacts, and keep looking for new opportunities. An ad hoc or unplanned approach can
easily lead to career stagnation.
Planning one’s career requires assessing one’s career progress,
potential obstacles to advancement, skills needed to advance,
and an occasional reassessment of whether to stay in one’s cur 1 SMARTER stands for specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, time-bound, ethical, and recorded. For a full description of SMARTER goals see the chapters on planning and project
management.
142
rent line of work. Spending time to answer these questions and
clarify your career goals will guide you in developing a path to
meet your aspirations.
The Curious Case of Kofi Annan
Perhaps one of the most famous examples of scaling great heights through
steady career advancement is the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan. In
1962, a 24-year old Annan started his career as an associate administrative
and budget officer with the World Health Organization in Geneva. Thirty-five
years later, the quiet man who began his UN career as a P1 was elected by the
Security Council to be the Secretary-General of the UN. Maybe as a child he
had the dream of becoming Secretary-General, maybe not; but from a young
age he had a vision of his professional life, and how he wanted to contribute
to public service.
His time was as limited as any manager’s. It is unlikely however, that he filled
his days with unimportant or mindless work. He knew how to concentrate on
the important tasks that related to his goals and thus used his time judiciously.
We can safely assume that he did not procrastinate or spend hours answering
e-mails that could have been dealt with by someone else. Nor did he ever lose
sight of the long-term goals he had set out for himself.
In field operations, where separation from family and friends is
part of the work environment, and the separation between personal and professional may not be as clear-cut, personal goals
and personal time need to be factored into the equation as well.
Personal goals should be identified and prioritized, and time
should be set aside to reach them.
Transforming Goals into Activities
Breaking down goals into activities that are manageable is the
first step toward achieving them. Each goal identified by category needs to be considered, and the list of tasks required to reach
the goals must be articulated. Each task can be classified by its
estimated time frame (urgent or not) and its order of importance
(important or not). This creates four categories of tasks:
• tasks that are important and urgent
• tasks that are important but not urgent
• tasks that are not important but urgent
• tasks that are neither important nor urgent
These categories of tasks are presented visually in table 7.1 below. Managers have no choice but to take care of activities in quad143
rant A (important and urgent). In a field mission these would include a variety of mandated tasks. The key determinant of longterm success, however, is the amount of time spent on activities
that fall into quadrant B. These are activities in support of important goals, but it remains up to each individual to develop a time
system to spend time on them. These are often the goals that
are neglected. The amount of time spent on activities related to
quadrants C and D should be minimized or eliminated.
Table 7.1. Prioritizing goals and activities
IMPORTANT
URGENT
NOT URGENT
A: (Do it now)
B: (Schedule time for this)
Crises
Prevention
Pressing problems
Planning
Deadline-driven projects
Building relationships
Empowerment
NOT IMPORTANT
True leisure activities
C: (Quick fix)
D: (Ignore)
Some mails
Busy work
Some meetings
Some mails and phone calls
Some phone calls
Some meetings
Some trivia activities
Some pleasure activities
(Table adapted from Steven Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1990.)
This table can help you assess the priority of your goals. It can
also assist you in determining which tasks to delegate in order to
have more time for activities in quadrant B. Performance evaluations cannot be delegated, but parts of report writing often can
be delegated and provide you with space to pursue other, often
neglected, objectives that are also important.
Using an Activity Log
The reality of time allocation is often a far cry from how you would
144
like to spend your time. Setting up goals and listing the activities
required to achieve them is a guide that needs to be compared to
the way time is actually being spent on a daily basis, as recorded
in an activity log (fig. 7.2).
An activity log should not be confused with a diary. An activity
log is a rigorous exercise that requires keeping a detailed track
record of how your time is spent throughout the day. The recording needs to be done for a few days, and preferably for a full
week. An activity log is most useful if it covers both personal and
professional time. The recording should take place as you go, not
at the end of the day
The activity log will pinpoint the “time robbers” that do not contribute to any of your important goals. It can help you decide
on what activities can be delegated or eliminated all together
(e.g., activities in quadrants C and D). The next step is to focus
on understanding why so much time is spent on less important
activities.
There are five time robbers that turn up on most managers’ lists:
• assuming the work of subordinates
• attending meetings with no objective
• travel
• distractions
• paper disorganization
Supervisors sometimes feel that it will take less time for them
to accomplish a task than to spend the time to explain what is
required to a subordinate and to follow up on implementation.
It is easy to fill a working day by doing other people’s work. This
leads to a prime management failure: lack of delegation and performance management.
145
Figure 7.2. Example of an activity log
START .
TIME
ACTIVITY
DURATION .
(MINS.)
PRIORITY
COMMENTS
7:30
Exercise
30
B
Well-being
8:10
Arrived at
office and
checked e-mail
20
C
Can be
delegated to
assistant?
8:30
Daily meetings
with chiefs
40
C/D
Is daily
meeting
required?
Would every
other day be
sufficient?
9:10
Meeting with
SRSG
20
A
Mandated
9:30
Call family
back home
15
A
Indispensible
9:45
Check e-mails
again
15
D
Should be
limited to
once a day
10:00
Staff member
dropped in
to provide
briefing on
a crisis in
another
division
30
D
There is
nothing I can
do about the
issue; should
be limited
to 5-minute
briefing
10:30
Looked for
background
paper required
for policy
meeting
10
D
Need to
organize file
system so
that papers
can be found
immediately
Delegation
Delegation is the act of assigning authority and responsibility to
another person, normally a subordinate, to carry out specific activities. The person who delegates a task remains accountable for
the outcome. Delegation empowers subordinates to make decisions and can motivate them into action.
Micromanagement is not effective delegation. It occurs when a
manager provides too much input, direction, and review of del146
egated work. This leads to frustration on both sides, and a waste
of time for all the involved parties.
Your ability to delegate can partly be identified through your
activity log. Your delegation skills need improvement if you see
some of these warning signs:
• working overtime on minutia or repetitive tasks;
• a backload of incomplete projects;
• too much time spent checking in on subordinates;
• too many interruptions from staff asking questions about
simple tasks; or
• recurrent conflict between staff.
Guidelines for Effective Delegation
• Instructions and guidelines need to be clear. Any ambiguity should be discussed and clarified.
• Measurable standards that are realistic should be used. Staff need to know
what will be the measure of success.
• Deadlines for the completion of projects need to be discussed and agreed
upon.
• Open communication is a critical factor in delegation. The staff need to
know that the manager is available for guidance.
• Delegation has to match the level of competence of the staff, reflect their
job description, and their position in the work unit.
• Motivation and commitment will increase and staff will feel a sense of ownership when a project or a task can be delegated entirely, not just a small
piece of it.
• Delegation should go hand in hand with giving credit and providing exposure to the staff entrusted with the responsibility of the project.
• Delegation is not abdication. Delegation requires regular monitoring as the
manager remains accountable for the success of the project.
Some assignments, however, benefit from not being delegated.
Where appropriate, managers need to retain responsibility for
the implementation of things like performance evaluations, disciplinary and conduct issues, strategic visioning, or certain politically-sensitive tasks.
Meetings
The need to exchange information, coordinate, and empower
means that an entire workday can be spent in a whirlwind of
147
meetings. Meetings are a necessary evil, but well-run meetings
can be not only useful but motivating. The problem is that many
meetings are poorly run or held for no pressing reason. In large,
risk-averse organizations, meetings are often held as substitutes
for making decisions.
When you call for a meeting, you bear the responsibility for ensuring that the meeting is well organized, efficient, and productive.
Six Keys to a Well-Organized Meeting
1.
Agenda—circulate in advance to allow for preparation
2. Purpose—have a clear objective
3. Timeframe—should be respected
4. Focus—keep meetings on topic
5. Inclusiveness—invite participants that can contribute something and provide them with an opportunity to speak
6. Note-taking—summarize the main points of the meetings in a short summary note that is distributed to all participants afterward
You can often feel obliged to attend every meeting to which you
are invited. With the exception of regular or mandatory meetings, you can save time by staying away from nonessential meetings (i.e., where you have nothing at stake, cannot contribute, or
have only been invited as a courtesy). Make sure to communicate
your decision and consider sending a replacement, or ask for the
meeting summary.
Travel
In the UN, travel is part of the job. Managers lose a lot of time
in transit. Jet lag and fatigue add a further strain on productivity. But travel time can often be used productively—background
reading can be done, papers can be written, etc. Try to think of
time spent travelling as an opportunity for activities to advance
one’s goals or activities in quadrant B: important but not urgent.
Distractions
E-mail, the Internet, phone calls, and unannounced visitors are
all distractions that can diminish productivity or prevent focused
work. Distractions shift attention away from the important tasks
of the day. A study on the cost of shifting attention concluded
148
that it reduces a company’s efficiency by 20 to 40 percent.2 Ideally, slots of time should be scheduled to check e-mail and have
phone conversations. Visitors should be kindly asked to request
an appointment.
Information overload is a major distraction. With the development of electronically available information, this problem has become even more serious. As a manager you should be in control
of information rather than the other way around. Here are some
tips to avoid distractions:
• Schedule time to read and answer e-mail.
• Clean your inbox by archiving e-mails on a regular basis.
• Do not answer e-mail that you are just cc’d on unless the issue really concerns you.
• Forward e-mail to members of your team with clear instructions (e.g., “FYI,” “for your immediate action,” “please advise,”
etc.).
The lack of an adequate file management system is an astonishing time robber. If your activity log shows that you waste time
searching for information that was already provided to you, you
need to develop a better paper and electronic filing system. Also,
remember that computer hard drives can easily crash. It takes
little time to have a reliable backup system, while it can take days
to reconstitute an important electronic file.
Procrastination
Procrastination is the number one enemy of time management.
To procrastinate is to defer or delay an important action by doing other activities of less importance. Procrastination not only
reduces your productivity and overall performance, it can be a
major source of stress and anxiety.
Common reasons for procrastination include coping with unpleasant or uninteresting tasks, fear of change and failure, or a
feeling that the task is overwhelming. Reducing or eliminating
procrastination is indispensible to taking control of one’s time.
Analysis of the activity log will help you identify patterns of procrastination and help you change the underlying behavior.
To move beyond procrastination:
• Make a detailed list that breaks down an assignment into a
2 Melissa Raffoni, “Are You Spending Your Time the Right Way?,” Harvard Management Update
11, No. 7 (July 2006).
149
number of clear steps or subactivities.
• Schedule time for the task when there is little chance for interruption, usually first thing in the day.
• Schedule a set amount of time for the task and schedule a
task that you enjoy right after it.
• Request help when you feel that you lack the knowledge required to accomplish the task.
• Impose artificial deadlines on your work that must be respected (e.g., schedule a meeting with a superior to discuss a
report you’re drafting, so you are forced to complete it prior
to the meeting).
Scheduling
To master time management requires dedication and discipline.
Once the important tasks, professional and personal, have been
identified and prioritized, it is necessary to commit to a schedule
and to support the schedule with detailed to-do lists.
Bearing in mind the four categories, tasks in quadrant A (urgent
and important) and quadrant B (not urgent but still important)
should dominate the schedule, while some time should also be
kept for quadrant C tasks (urgent but not important). By now,
quadrant D—neither urgent nor important—should be eliminated.
How to Build an Effective Schedule
• Tasks in quadrant A need to be scheduled first, both professional and personal activities. These tasks should be given time slots in the coming days,
weeks, and months.
• Tasks in quadrant B need to be scheduled as far in advance as possible.
• Tasks in quadrant C: Devote only a part of your day for these tasks to allow
time for unexpected crises and events.
• Repetitive tasks: Paperwork, e-mails, and phone calls are best dealt with
when clear slot times are dedicated to them, instead of handling these tasks
as they come up throughout the day.
• To-do list: Supplement the calendar with a to-do list that should be reviewed
on a daily basis, preferably at the start and at the end of each day. Today,
most managers rely on electronic appointment calendars that have to-do
list applications.
• Timeframe: Each project should have an estimated total number of weeks,
days, and hours required to accomplish it.
• Uncompleted priority tasks: Should be rescheduled as a priority.
150
CASE 1
The Unprepared Meeting
For a week in September, Nicolas had to fill in as head of the section while his boss attended a conference out of the country. As
the acting head of section, he was now responsible for conducting the weekly coordination meeting among the staff in his section. Given the large load of new tasks he was now responsible
for, in addition to his usual responsibilities, he did not give much
thought to preparing for the weekly meeting.
When the time came to hold the meeting, a disappointing number of colleagues failed to show up on time. Nicolas, however,
pressed on and began to run through the key issues facing the
team that week. Conscious of his boss’s tendency to be the only
one to speak in meetings, he opened up the conversation so everyone could report on the key issues for the week.
151
A few important issues came out, of which Nicolas took note.
However, the staff also took the opportunity to vent some of their
frustrations about the lack of support they receive, and the conversation quickly turned away from those issues Nicolas had intended the meeting to cover. He patiently waited until the conversation ended and went through the other issue he remembered
to discuss with the group. As a result of the digression, though,
the meeting finished thirty minutes later than intended, and he
was now going to skip lunch or be late to his next meeting.
The next week, Nicolas’s boss returned from her conference and
asked for a run-down of the weekly section meeting. Nicolas had
taken a few notes during the meeting, but did not have a comprehensive account of the discussion, since he was actively participating, and had not designated a notetaker. He also realized that
he had forgotten to brief the staff on the state of the latest report
of the Secretary-General, the inputs that were required, and the
deadlines, something his boss had specifically asked him to do.
The section head reminded Nicolas that she always prepares a
written agenda prior to any meeting. This helps her remember
each point she wants to cover and keep the conversation focused. A focused conversation is more likely to end on schedule
than one without an agenda. The section head also has her assistant send out a reminder e-mail a day before each section meeting to remind all staff of the meeting time, location, and agenda
topics. Finally, she has someone in the group take on the role of
secretary to record the meeting minutes and e-mail them to the
participants for comment directly after the meeting. In this way,
no important points of the conversation are lost, and everyone
understands the next steps and actions that had been agreed on.
152
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. Enter goals and objectives into a calendar once they have
been identified.
2. Prioritize your time by defining SMARTER goals.
3. Focus on important tasks and weed out time killers.
4. Avoid micromanagement and learn to delegate to have more
time for important tasks.
5. When organizing a meeting, always make sure to have an objective, an agenda, define a timeframe, keep the focus, be inclusive and careful about the format and size, and assign a
notetaker.
6. Use periods of travel to catch up on important reading and
other productive activities.
7. Manage your communications to minimize disruption, for example by allocating time slots to answer correspondence and
make phone calls.
8. Set up a filing system, both hard copy and electronically (with
backup), to ensure you have quick access to information,
whenever needed.
9. Be aware of the time wasted through procrastination, and
take active steps to reduce or eliminate it.
10.Build a schedule around your goals and objectives with detailed to-do lists for the various tasks, depending on their importance and urgency.
153
SUMMARY CHECKLIST
Did I ask myself the right questions?
Avoiding .
distraction
Delegating
Organizing
Do I prioritize those activities and tasks
(urgent and important) that are required to
achieve my goals?
Do I keep a calendar of tasks, a daily or
weekly activity log and to-do lists?
Do I run effective meetings with an objective,
agenda, timeframe, and notetaker?
Do I have an effective filing system, both hard
copy and electronically?
Do I know which tasks to delegate—and then
empower and give credit to my staff? Do I
know which tasks it is better not to delegate?
Am I perceived by my staff as a micromanager?
Am I able to say “no” to invitations to certain
meetings or unannounced visits when my time
is better used elsewhere?
Do I allocate slots of time to check e-mail and
make phone calls?
Do I know what the causes of my procrastination are?
154
YES
NO
RESOURCES
• Harvard Business School Press. Managing Time: Expert Solutions to Everyday Challenges. Pocket Mentor. Boston, 2006.
• Hoover, John. Time Management: Set Priorities to Get the
Right Things Done. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
• Jones, Katie. Time Management: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Working Smarter. New York: Amacom, 1998.
• Lakein, Alan. How to Get Control of Your Time and Your Life.
New York: Signet, 1989.
• Leland, Karen and Keith Bailey. Time Management in an Instant. Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press, 2008.
• Loehr, Jim and Tony Schwartz. The Power of Full Engagement: Managing Energy, Not Time, Is the Key to High Performance and Personal Renewal. New York: Simon & Schuster,
2005.
• Mackenzie, Alec and Pat Nickerson. The Time Trap: The Classic Book on Time Management. New York: Amacom, 2009.
• Morgenstern, Julie. Time Management from the Inside Out,
2nd ed. New York: Henry Holt, 2004.
• Silber, Lee. Time Management for the Creative Person: RightBrain Strategies for Stopping Procrastination, Getting Control of the Clock and Calendar, and Freeing Up Your Time and
Your Life. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1998.
• Traub, James. The Best Intentions: Kofi Annan and the UN in
the Era of American Power. London: Bloomsbury, 2006.
• Walsh, Richard. Time Management: Proven Techniques for
Making Every Minute Count. Avon, MA: Adams Business,
2008.
• Zeller, Dirk. Successful Time Management for Dummies. Indianapolis: Wiley, 2009.
155
8
Knowledge Management
K N OW L E D G E
MANAGEMENT
Knowledge management is the process or group of processes
by which organizations capture, analyze, and share the experience and knowledge of its staff. Properly executed, it ensures
that the right people have the right information at the right time. It facilitates problem solving, saves time, assists planning, and
influences policy and guidance development. It fosters learning
and improvement in your team and in those that come after you. OVERVIEW
United Nations peacekeeping operations and special political
missions have evolved into global, complex undertakings. The
range of different activities performed and the need to employ
resources efficiently require a systematic approach to the way
in which operations are carried out. Thousands of similar tasks
happen simultaneously in missions throughout the world, and although context varies from mission to mission, lessons emerge
on a daily basis that are broadly applicable. Field missions have
much to gain from sharing what works best (commonly referred
to as “best practices” or “good practices”), applying lessons
learned elsewhere, connecting specialized staff across the UN
system, and being able to reference a consistent body of tested
methods for carrying out tasks. Knowledge management (KM)
helps to develop a disciplined approach to capturing, analyzing,
sharing, and using practical information. KM fits into a broader
learning cycle within the UN: relevant information gathered from
the field informs policy and guidance, while subsequent knowledge transfer (training) and the application of policy and guidance on the ground feed back into the development of revised
guidance as demonstrated in figure 8.1.
Knowledge sharing within and between UN field missions has
the added advantage of allowing missions to fill guidance gaps
due to limited capacity at headquarters. Field mission staff come
from varied cultural and professional backgrounds, and knowledge sharing across staff and components of a mission can
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of certain activities. It
promotes continuity where there is high staff turnover, and disseminates expertise through information sharing and training.
Sharing knowledge is an opportunity for all managers to contribute to the development of future guidance and policy.
158
Figure 8.1. Knowledge management and the UN learning cycle
Learning process
within mission
FIELD MISSION
The Manager in the Field
Guidance can
also be issued by
the mission and
managers in the field
Larger field-HQ institutional learning process
Field missions share lessons and
good practices with HQ and across
missions. HQ captures, analyzes and
systemizes knowledge products,
which may then feed into future
guidance and decision making.
Headquarters disseminates
standardized processes and
practice via policy, guidelines,
training, and Internet resources.
HEADQUARTERS
knowledge management tools:
• facilitate learning and sharing of good practices and lessons
learned;
• help you avoid repeating past mistakes;
• save time by making knowledge and resources easily accessible;
• facilitate networking with people who can support your
goals;
• help solve problems by utilizing the correct knowledge.
This chapter highlights the importance of KM in the achievement
of individual and organizational goals. It describes practical tools
and techniques that support the day-to-day activities of field
staff in the creation, identification, collection, and organization of
knowledge. While this chapter is focused on practical approaches for the individual, it is important to recognize that KM requires
a supporting culture (often organization-wide), enabled by clear
expectations, processes, leadership, and accountability, as well as
appropriate systems and adequate technology.
159
What should you get out of this chapter?
• Why KM is important and relevant to your job
• How to capture and share experience
• How to access and use existing UN KM tools
• How to select the most adequate KM tool
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
Turning tacit knowledge (experiential) into explicit knowledge
(often written but also including lessons-learned workshops, etc.)
is a fundamental KM process. Organizations, for lack of a better system, often rely on word of mouth or “learning on the job”
approaches to share knowledge; however, these require face-toface communication and significant time, limiting efficiency, impact, and increasing dependency on specific individuals. In UN
field missions in particular, high turnover and vacancy rates make
it impossible to rely solely on word of mouth to retain important
information. Documenting experiences, processes, and “the way
we do things” can help:
• retain information and develop institutional memory, reducing organizational reliance on specific individuals;
• communicate and share information more clearly;
• store an idea or specific details about how a task was completed.
The term “knowledge” is broadly applied, but should be differentiated from that which is just information. Reports often
merely contain information (e.g., a shortage of equipment, the
occurrence of an incident, etc.) rather than knowledge (e.g., how
the incident was addressed and what was learned from this approach). It is always more challenging to capture knowledge than
information. The below diagram differentiates knowledge from
data and information.
160
Figure 8.2. Differentiating data, information, and knowledge
Decision Making
Synthesizing
Knowledge
Analyzing
Summarizing
Information
Organizing
Collecting
Data
Knowledge can be seen as tacit or explicit. When knowledge is
considered tacit it is intangible and impermanent (e.g., knowledge relayed in a telephone conversation). On the other hand, explicit knowledge can be physically stored, distributed, seen, and
touched. Table 8.1 below provides examples of tacit and explicit
knowledge:
Table 8.1. Differentiating between tacit and explicit knowledge
Tacit
Explicit
Conversations
Structured briefings, moderated conversations at
workshops
Experiences
Language
Relationships
Ideas
Printed documents & CD-ROMs
Manuals
Websites
Process diagrams
Knowledge Management Techniques and Tools
The greatest challenge to effective knowledge sharing is not inadequate technology, but rather human nature. KM requires a
change in organizational culture (of sharing, rather than retain161
ing, information), and it is therefore essential that subject matter experts, process experts, as well as technology experts work
together toward devising effective KM strategies. Although technology can be a critical enabler of KM—providing the means to
create, store, organize, and share information—it should not be
the primary driver of a KM strategy. Table 8.2 below identifies various KM tools and techniques and aligns them with four knowledge processes.
Table 8.2. Knowledge management processes and tools
Knowledge
Process
Examples of knowledge tools .
and techniques
Capture/store
Documents, databases, picture albums, videos,
diagrams, recordings, websites, blogs
Share
Conversations, meetings, documents, e-mails, text
messages, tweets, websites
Identify
File names and structures, databases, stakeholder
analyses, networking, websites, all communication,
indexes, search engines
Create
Documentation, websites, analyses, experiences,
conversations, understanding
Organizations rely on specialization—creating teams and structures that develop specific skills and procedures to complete
activities effectively and efficiently. As a result, specialization
creates interdependencies between groups or teams of people,
increasing the need for effective communication and collaboration.
As shown in table 8.3, a number of tools and techniques are used
at different times during knowledge management processes—
documents, stakeholder maps, debriefs, communities of practice,
e-mails, and knowledge bases, etc. Sometimes variations of these
or organization-specific tools and techniques are used.
162
Table 8.3. When to use what tools
Tool/ .
technique
Description
Process
Critical
knowledge
documents
Agendas, minutes,
handover notes,
end-of-assignment reports,
after-action
reviews, surveys
of practice and
lessons learned
Capture,
store, share
Stakeholder
mapping
Where is the
knowledge, who
are my knowledge
partners?
Identify,
share
Debriefing
Capturing
experience and
learning
Create,
capture
Communities
of practice
Leveraging
expertise and
fostering new
ideas
Identify,
create,
share
Knowledge
bases
Building and
accessing
knowledge bases
Identify,
share, store
Before
During
After
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Stakeholder Mapping
A stakeholder is anyone who affects or can be affected by your
organization’s activities or projects. As demonstrated in figure 2
overleaf, stakeholder mapping can help you understand who is
around you and, importantly, what knowledge they have and are
responsible for managing.
163
Figure 8.3. Example of a stakeholder map
UN Headquarters
Other UN
Missions
Desk officers/IOT; Best
Practices Section (standards,
after-action reviews, lesson
learned, communities of
practice, etc.)
Other UN &
Non-UN Entities
UN agencies, communities
of practice, (e.g., UNDP
TEAMworks), NGOs, etc.
Local Knowledge
Me
From national
counterparts,
partners, etc.
My Team
My Predecessor
Institutional knowledge,
briefings, key documents
(meeting notes, reports),
e-mails, etc.
In-person debriefing,
handover note, end-ofassignment report, etc.
Debriefing
A debriefing is a tool to capture the experience of an individual
or group after completing an exercise. It allows the person or
group to reflect on the process, outcomes achieved, and identify improvements and good practices. For particularly stressful
situations or experiences, the debrief process can reduce tension
and stress by providing a constructive mechanism to talk or write
about how the person or group feels and about the impact the
experience had on their work. Debriefs can vary from a one-onone verbal debrief to a written or published report and are typically facilitated by a manager or team leader. Best practice officers can also facilitate debriefs, for example through after-action
reviews (AAR). Common elements across these types of debriefs
include a review of the process or steps completed, of who did
what, and of outputs and outcomes. Project debriefs also comprise an identification of positive elements and strengths, as well
as of areas for improvement.
164
Sample Debriefing Questions
• What did we want to achieve?
• What was achieved?
• What worked well? Why?
• What could be improved or completed differently? What impact do you
think this will have?
• What circumstances were not anticipated?
• Were the mandated/program/project goals attained? If not, what changes
need to be made to meet goals in the future?
Community of Practice
A community of practice (CoP) is a group of people who share
an interest, skill, or profession, and who are active practitioners.
Communities of practice can be informal or formal ways of working together, identifying common solutions, and sharing good
practice and ideas. In the context of the UN, CoPs take the form
of online platforms that bring together practitioners across missions. They are often moderated by a facilitator who can encourage conversations, follow up on queries, and upload interesting
articles and links. CoPs often become dormant without a good
facilitator.
There are many communities of practice relevant to the work
of UN field missions. The UN has already developed a number
of CoPs for various types of specialties (security-sector reform,
DDR, etc.), but other CoPs also bring together multiple organizations on a similar topic of interest, such as the International Network to Promote the Rule of Law (INPROL) or the Stabilization
and Peacebuilding Community of Practice (SP-CoP). CoPs work
when members actively use them, and there are benefits for field
managers in making use of this tool:
• A CoP provides an environment (virtual or face-to-face) that
connects people and encourages the development and sharing of new ideas and strategies (i.e., knowledge creation).
• CoPs reduce time by supporting faster problem solving, reducing the duplication of effort, and providing easy access
to expertise.
165
Knowledge Bases
Knowledge bases allow data, information, and knowledge to be
organized, stored, and easily accessed. Examples of knowledge
bases are databases, FAQs (a list of frequently asked questions),
intranets, and wikis—i.e., informal, group-edited websites that
make it easy to collect large amounts of information on a range
of related subjects. Knowledge bases can be public or private,
paper-based or electronic. Private knowledge bases could be an
organization’s collection of hard-copy documents, or an electronic database, such as an intranet.
Getting the Basics of KM
There are a few guiding principles that will ensure you are making the most of your knowledge management efforts. Whether
creating a template, contributing to a community of practice, organizing a presentation, or participating in a workshop, ask yourself whether the knowledge that you are planning to collect and
share is relevant, practical, replicable, personal, and followed up
on.1
• Relevant: It should be up to date and current. Focus ideally
on new initiatives or involvement in new processes that others may wish to replicate, or on mistakes that others should
avoid repeating.
• Practical: Remember that the UN is a practice-based organization. The knowledge that you share will potentially be
translated into future projects and processes. The emphasis
should therefore be on sharing practical experience and lessons. Wherever possible, try to back up recommendations
and advice with concrete experience and an impartial and
unbiased view of what worked and what did not.
• Replicable: Examples of good practice are often heavily context dependent, and so are mistakes. Explaining the context
(political, security, socioeconomic, etc.) and the various actors involved helps others judge whether replicating the project, activity, or process in another setting is likely to yield
similar results, or whether certain conditions could be created before attempting replication.
• Personal: Ideally the knowledge you share should be based
on something you have directly experienced or witnessed,
not something you have heard about second- or thirdhand.
1 Adapted from the United Nations Development Programme, “Knowledge Management Toolkit for the Crisis Prevention and Recovery Practice Area,” March 2007.
166
If you are not writing about your own experiences, then consider whether you are the best person to carry out the work.
It may be better to provide support to others to record their
own experiences directly.
• Followed up: Contributing to a knowledge management process or drafting and disseminating a knowledge product is
only the beginning of a process. It is important to follow up
to ensure that lessons learned and recommendations have
been received, understood, and acted on by your target audience. Good practice changes quickly in crisis prevention
and recovery and it is essential to ensure that KM fits into
a broader learning cycle consisting of information collected
and analyzed that will go back into the system as knowledge
to inform future policy and guidance.
Resources Available for Knowledge Management in the
UN System2
For the purpose of knowledge sharing, the resources and tools
shown in table 8.4 below have been developed and deployed
across UN field missions and headquarters. These templates and
tools form a “best practices toolbox” maintained by DPKO/DFS.
Although the DPA Guidance and Learning Unit (GLU) is separate
from the DPKO Policy and Best Practices Service (PBPS), the KM
tools used by both in field missions are similar.
Templates and communities of practice can be accessed through
DPKO and DPA’s intranets, as well as the Policy and Practice Database (www.unprh.unlb.org). The use of the templates ensures
consistency in the capture of good practices and lessons learned
and appropriate management of confidential information. The
use of standard formats also facilitates the analysis of issues for
follow up at mission and headquarters level.
2 The tools and roles outlined in this section have been adapted from the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Department of Field Support, “Policy: Knowledge
Sharing,” May 2009.
167
Table 8.4. UN resources for knowledge management
Tool
Description
Support
End-of- .
assignment
reports
Personal accounts of lessons
learned in the implementation of
mandates and on the department
or team’s institutional capacity to
carry out mandated tasks.
Created by field
staff—templates
available on
intranets and
from DPKO best
practice officer.
Handover
note
Created by staff members before
leaving their post (temporarily or
permanently) to assist a successor.
Unlike end-of-assignment reports,
handover notes are strictly factual
and do not contain analysis, assessment, or evaluation.
Created by field
staff—templates
available via
intranet and
from DPKO best
practice officer.
After- .
action .
review
(AAR)
An analysis of an action, activity, or project to allow a team to
reflect on what happened, why it
happened, what was learned, what
follow-up action should be taken,
and how it can be done better
in the future. An AAR can be a
routine part of any action, activity, or project with a view toward
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization in
the future.
Created by field
staff—templates
available via
intranet and
from DPKO best
practice officer.
Survey of
practice
A snapshot of how peacekeeping
practitioners carry out a certain
function or activity. Used to provide options, lessons, and good
practices to missions on issues
that other missions have dealt with
before, but for which there is no
official guidance.
Created by HQ
staff—accessed
via intranet and
from DPKO best
practice officer.
Community
of practice
Online networks where members
can ask each other questions,
exchange information, build up a
shared library of useful resources
contribute to policy development
and find counterparts in other field
missions.
Accessed via
intranet and
from DPKO best
practice officer.
Lessonslearned
study
An in-depth study on a specific
activity, theme, or functional area,
undertaken either by DPKO personnel or external experts.
Accessed via
intranet and
from DPKO best
practice officer.
168
Confidentiality requirements may govern the dissemination and
handling of some information shared through the above-mentioned UN tools. Unless specific instructions with regards to the
status of a document are received from missions or the authors,
sensitivity status should be determined by headquarters before
documents are made available to a wider UN audience.
Table 8.5. Knowledge management roles and responsibilities in
peacekeeping missions
Roles
Responsibilities
All staff
Share specialized knowledge through participation in
communities of practice and draft reports using the
best practices toolbox
Complete handover notes
Complete end-of-assignment reports
Consult best practices resources and integrate into
daily work
Best practice
officer (BPO)
Trains staff on the use of available knowledge management tools
Promotes and facilitates the creation and sharing of
reports
Encourages and provides access to communities of
practice and the intranet
DPKO HQ
Promotes knowledge sharing across DPKO peacekeeping missions
Coordinates the activities of best practice officers
Develops and maintains knowledge-sharing systems,
including tools and templates, communities of practice, and the best practices and guidance database on
the intranet
Field .
mission .
management
Promotes knowledge sharing within all areas of the
mission through the creation of a conducive environment and the establishment of supportive policies
Ensures follow up on mission-specific recommendations contained in best practices toolbox reports
More generally, different staff members have different roles to
play when it comes to managing and sharing knowledge in UN
field missions. Table 8.5 below outlines who is responsible for
what.
169
CASE 1
Arriving in a Mission as DDR Program Officer
You just arrived in the mission, quickly met with the DDR section and its chief/director in mission headquarters during your
“check-in.” You were then immediately deployed to a regional office, where the person you are replacing—previously heading the
DDR program there—left a month prior without having completed a handover note. There is also no “start-up kit” waiting for you,
and the induction training you received in mission headquarters
upon arrival did not go into much detail about the DDR program
in this region.
The first step is to meet with your team in the regional office
and find any existing documentation (hard copies and electronic
files) left by your predecessor, starting with the organizational
chart for your office, key mission documents (RBB, ISF, mission
work plans), but also documents that will help you better understand your job—e.g., section work plan and budget, project
proposals, the country’s constitution, essential decrees, ceasefire
agreements, peace accords, recent reports, minutes from key
meetings, evaluations of projects, talking points, PPT presentations, etc.
Make sure you know what is already there by talking to both
your international and national colleagues in your office, as well
as other offices within your regional headquarters starting with
representatives of the political, civil affairs, and human rights sections, as well as the force, UNPOLs, and the different components
of mission support, etc. Ask many questions and listen to as many
people as possible. In the absence of a detailed handover note,
this might help you avoid reinventing the wheel. Often, national
colleagues have been there the longest and have great institutional knowledge, in addition to essential local knowledge. Once
you know what you have, you can deduce what is missing, and a
simple cordial e-mail or phone call to colleagues from the DDR
section in mission headquarters, particularly if you met them in
person during your check-in, could get you the information or
document you are looking for.
A second step, once you have familiarized yourself with your
new office and the program, is to search for existing knowledge
and guidance that may be useful for your day-to-day work. You
of course know of the IDDRS website (www.unddr.org), which
includes DDR templates from past programs, but what you are
looking for may not be there. A good place to look will be the
mission intranet, from where you will be able to sign up for a
170
community of practice (CoP) on DDR (where you can ask questions by e-mail to other practitioners across UN missions), but
also access after-action reviews, end-of-assignment reports, and
best-practice reports from other missions. In some exceptional
cases, you may need to contact your desk officer (normally done
through your DDR section chief in mission headquarters, who
may delegate) in UN headquarters DPKO/OROSLI for support.
Do not limit yourself to the UN, the Internet is now an incredible
source of information, just make sure to know what you are reading and where it came from.
Now that you have gotten started, make sure you and your office
keep well-organized paper and electronic archives so that the
next person does not have to go through what you just did. Also,
when what your program is doing or has done is worth sharing
with others, talk to your supervisor and/or the best practice officer in the mission about capturing this knowledge in an appropriate format for sharing with others beyond the mission, in other
missions, and in headquarters. Not only will this help disseminating a useful innovation or good practice, but you may also get
invited somewhere to present on it.
CASE 2
How the First QIPs Policy Was Developed and Subsequently Revised
The idea for quick impact projects (QIPs) was first put forward in
the Report of the Panel on UN Peace Operations (i.e., the Brahimi
Report), which recommended that a small percentage of a mission’s first-year budget should be made available to the SRSG to
fund QIPs. The Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations
subsequently supported this recommendation. By 2006, QIPs
had become a well-known part of UN peacekeeping missions and
anecdotal evidence showed it to be—at the very least—a useful entry point for missions to build confidence with their local
counterparts in fulfillment of the mission mandate. In June 2006,
the General Assembly emphasized the need for a comprehensive
DPKO Policy Directive on QIPs, including on resource allocations
(A/RES/60/266).
Based on this, the DPKO Best Practice Section designed a survey
of practice to collect the experiences of peacekeeping practitioners with QIPs across different UN field missions. Although there
had only been limited guidance at the time on how to design
and manage a QIP, a number of lessons were already available
from practice that subsequently informed the first version of the
171
DPKO/DFS Policy Directive on QIPs, approved in February 2007.
The policy clearly defined for the first time the purpose of QIPs:
“small-scale, rapidly-implementable projects, of benefit to the
population…used by UN peacekeeping operations to establish
and build confidence in the mission, its mandate, and the peace
process, thereby improving the environment for effective mandate implementation.” The policy also laid out the minimum financial procedures that must be followed for QIPs. Guidelines on the
implementation of QIPs followed the next year, with more detail
and codified good practice on the QIPs’ management structures
and cycle. Finally, a QIPs-specific program management training
was piloted in 2011, and will now be held on an annual basis.
Despite the 2007 policy, many challenges in the implementation
phase of QIPs remained. This prompted DPKO Best Practices,
together with Civil Affairs and DFS, to launch a larger lessonslearned study with a view to identifying those challenges, proposing solutions for addressing them and codifying best practices. The study was based on an analysis of survey responses from
QIP managers of approximately 442 projects completed in the
past year across nine missions, ranging from the installation of
solar-powered public lighting in Haiti to the rehabilitation of policing border posts in Liberia. In addition, qualitative inputs were
collected from discussions with heads of Civil Affairs at their annual workshop in June 2010, as well as with QIPs program managers brought to New York in October 2010 for a pilot training
program, “Quick Impact Project Management for Peacekeepers.”
The report also reflected a synthesis of evaluations conducted by
missions, a comprehensive review of mission end-of-assignment
reports, a review of all QIPs-related discussion in the Civil Affairs
Network, and significant inputs from the working level (via Civil
Affairs and Mission Support).
Continuing the knowledge management cycle, the DPKO/DFS
Best Practices lessons-learned study was published in January
2011 and became the basis for implementing the formal review of
the QIPs Policy Directive and Guidelines, as requested by member states, and subsequently for a revised version of the QIPs
Policy Directive.
172
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. Every member of a peacekeeping operation has a role to play
in managing knowledge.
2. Useful knowledge is out there, but you have to know where
to look for it.
3. Data and information becomes knowledge when it useful
(succinct, analytical, and actionable).
4. Choose the KM tool you think is most likely to be used by
others (i.e., e-mail or CoP may sometimes be more timely and
widely read than a more formal report).
5. Follow up on reports and reviews to make sure the lessons
have been understood correctly and utilized.
173
SUMMARY CHECKLIST
Share
Capture
Utilizing KM resources
Did I ask myself the right questions?
Do I make regular use of UNDPKO intranet
resources?
Do I have sufficient interaction with the mission’s
best practice officer?
Do I look to other sections or missions to find
solutions to problems?
Do I utilize expert knowledge networks or
communities of practice?
Do I have processes in place to document good
team practices and lessons learned?
Does my team submit after-action reviews,
end-of-assignment reports, and handover notes?
Do I routinely document and share how
problems have been solved in my team?
Do I make an effort to share knowledge across
components of the mission?
174
YES
NO
RESOURCES
United Nations
• United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Lessons Learned Studies. Peacekeeping Resource Hub. Available
at: www.peacekeepingbestpractices.unlb.org/PBPS/Pages/
Public/library.aspx?ot=2&scat=305&menukey=_4_2_4 .
• United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations and
Department of Field Support. “Policy: Knowledge Sharing.”
May 2009.
• United Nations Development Programme. “Knowledge Management Toolkit for the Crisis Prevention and Recovery Practice Area.” March 2007.
• United Nations Development Programme. The Teamworks
Solution. Available at www.beta.undp.org/content/undp/
en/home/librarypage/knowledge_sharinglibrary/the_teamworks_solution.html .
Further Reading
• Ramalingam, Ben. “Tools for Knowledge and Learning: A
Guide for Development and Humanitarian Organisations.”
London: Overseas Development Institute, 2006.
• World Bank. Knowledge for Development Program. Available at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/
WBIPROGRAMS/KFDLP/0,,menuPK:461238~pagePK:641561
43~piPK:64154155~theSitePK:461198,00.html .
• World Bank. Knowledge Management Initiative. Available at
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/WBIPROGRAMS/KFDLP/0,,contentMDK:20934424~menuPK:288
2148~pagePK:64156158~piPK:64152884~theSitePK:461198~is
CURL:Y,00.html .
175
9
Managing Security
M A N AG I N G
SECURITY
Security management is about taking responsibility for, and
actions toward, ensuring the safety of yourself and your colleagues. OVERVIEW
The responsibilities of a manager in field operations are many,
and no one is perfect. Wrong hiring decisions, sloppy program
management, incomplete planning—all such flaws may become
the stuff of legend many years later and looked back on with
some indulgence. But where the responsibility for the safety of
one’s colleagues is concerned, there is no margin for error, and
negligence, poor judgment, or reckless decisions will never be
forgotten.
One of the readings recommended in this chapter is the report
by an independent panel of experts, chaired by Lakhdar Brahimi,
that in part examines how the United Nations lost seventeen staff
members in a terrorist attack on its office in Algiers in December,
2007. It describes a culture of bureaucratic “passivity,” recalling
how a similar attack in Baghdad led to twenty-two dead (with
lessons only partially learned), and it singles out numerous individuals, at headquarters and in Algiers, who failed to live up to
their responsibilities. Disciplinary action followed, but this did not
bring closure—and the many loved ones left behind, as well as the
people who were wounded or traumatized in these attacks, still
suffer. Clearly, staff security and safety is a manager’s primary
responsibility, trumping any programmatic or political tasks.
Because a security system is only as robust as its weakest link,
the chain of responsibility affects all field staff and managers at
every level. Internalizing the security procedures, being familiar
with the equipment, taking no disproportionate risks, and communicating effectively are every manager’s responsibility. This
chapter speaks to the protection of staff, as well as ways to reduce risks to your own security while in the field.
This chapter should in no way be seen as a substitute for the UN’s
own guidance, standards, or training on safety and security.
178
Have you ever…
• gone on a field mission without having made a will?
• skipped a security briefing, thinking it would be boring and cumbersome?
• pretended that you understood how something like a handheld radio
worked, in order not to look stupid?
• faced a sudden power failure in your hotel, and realized that you did not
pack a flashlight?
• left your medicine in your checked-in luggage?
• skipped a security radio roll call, because you did not want to sit and wait
for it?
• wondered what you would do if you were kidnapped?
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
Keeping Others Safe
Security management has little to do with brawn—it is mostly
about brains. Over the years, and often at high cost, governmental and nongovernmental international organizations have
learned quite a bit about the overall concepts, as well as the operational techniques, required to maintain a secure environment.
Three core components stand out: the need to understand the
context of one’s work; the need to adopt a strategy that meets
one’s particular mission or mandate; and the need to develop and
implement both preventive and reactive security plans.
Situational analysis and threat assessment
When working in a field context, it is important to understand that
you may have a completely different image of your organization
than the people around you. That you have a well-meaning, internationally lawful mandate from the Security Council can mean
little to a local audience; your good intentions, your commitment
to impartiality, humanitarian principles, or the millennium development goals are also not obvious to all. You may be working in
an environment where any external actor is viewed with suspicion, possibly representing a threat to local values, beliefs, and
cultures. As such, it is essential that you make an effort to understand how you are perceived, while you reach out to influence
that image positively. Your actions during and outside of work,
the national staff you recruit (competitive recruitment may not
result in a diverse and representative national staff), the projects
and programs you run (projects to empower local women may
not be well received in certain communities), your support to the
host government and its security forces in particular can all either
179
improve or aggravate the way you are perceived by certain local
groups. Always keep this in mind.
You also need to understand the context of your work. There is
easily accessible information that can shed light on your security
situation. What is the background of the conflict that provides
the setting, or even the rationale, for your presence in the area?
What is the political economy, and who is profiting from the instability? Who are the major players, what factions are involved,
and what are their grievances?
Understanding the regional cultures and their value systems is
equally important, especially if they might feel threatened by foreign and alien influences, or the work of your organization. What
are the beliefs, norms, and values of the people around you?
What groups or divisions are there? How do men and women
interact? How do they dress? What are the key symbols of the local religions, or of the local ideology? What are the flags, colors,
sacred places, or sacred days?
In addition to the potential violence and insecurity that may be
caused by political, religious, or cultural clashes, there is also the
threat of random, apolitical crime. What is the local crime rate;
are small arms readily available; and what are the sources of instability driven by poverty, food scarcity, or unemployment? Does
your organization have a mapping capacity, using geographical
information systems, for example, to identify particularly risky areas or situations?
Your component may have a unit dedicated to risk analysis, but
it always helps to do one’s own fact finding: often, your national
colleagues and the local press are well informed, and worth pursuing. International and local NGOs with a permanent presence in
areas where you travel occasionally are also good sources.
Based on this kind of information, most organizations carry out
some type of risk assessment (e.g., threat x vulnerability = risk).
Indeed, the new United Nations Security Level System, as part of
the broad UN Security Risk Management model, requires a threat
assessment to describe the general security environment in a given geographical area. In this model, the descriptive threat assessment has been separated from the overarching and prescriptive
risk management and mitigation strategies.
Ultimately, organization-wide assessments, as well as your personal judgment, should clarify some basic security-relevant questions for every activity and program you carry out: Should we be
here at all—do the benefits outweigh the risks? If we stay, can
we discern some patterns that make an increase or decrease in
180
instability likely? What new threats could emerge? How would
they affect us? Given our profile, how vulnerable are we to acts of
terrorism, political violence, crime, or even the actions of disgruntled beneficiaries or staff? Do not just rely on your headquarters
or your principals to carry out such risk analysis—contribute actively! The protective strategies and the security plan adopted by
your colleagues will only be as reliable as their understanding of
the context in which you work.
Determining a security strategy
Traditionally, three broad strategies are commonly accepted by
most security experts as the options available to organizations
working in violent environments: acceptance, protection, and
deterrence.1 An acceptance approach aims at reducing risk by
increasing the political and social consent of communities to an
organization’s presence and to its work. A protective approach
uses devices and procedures to “harden the target.” A deterrence
approach, finally, aims to deter a threat by creating a counterthreat—anything from the use of force to withholding aid. In practice, most operations use a mix of these three strategies, influenced by their role and mandate.
For most humanitarian and development agencies, acceptance is
the preferred strategy—to reach out to stakeholder communities,
even those that may be driven by mistrust, and persevere until
consent has been gained. It requires a detailed analysis of who
those stakeholders are, what their concerns may be, and how
they can be won over. Keeping an open communication channel
with local partners is nearly always essential to bridge gaps and
build trust.
A protection strategy is easier to implement, but also less likely
to gain community support. Perimeter walls around the office,
barbed wire, armed guards, metal gates, controlled visitor access, armored vehicles, convoys, blast films, and secure rooms do
indeed create a “hardened target,” and sometimes are unavoidable, but at the same time, they do not exactly promote a perception of humanitarian or human-rights intentions—these are
difficult trade-offs.
A deterrence approach is particularly difficult to translate into
practical action. Threatening suspension of programs or withdrawal is often an option, and so is forging an alliance with local
strongmen, but this can turn into blackmail. Armed protection
can be sought, but that is an acknowledgement of a very high
risk threshold, which raises the questions: Should one stay at all?
1 For a thorough discussion of the options, see Overseas Development Institute, Humanitarian
Practice Network, Operational Security Management in Violent Environments, Good Practice
Review No. 8 (London, 2010), chap. 3.
181
Should one risk a confrontation where one’s armed protection
unit goes into battle? And how does the procurement of armed
protection from one group affect one’s efforts to appear impartial? Again, security managers must consult with top-level decision makers in the organization, who can assess the broader
political and programmatic impact of any actions.
Having a security plan
Once risks and threats are fully understood, and once a strategic
approach has been crafted that reflects both one’s mandate and
its operational context, the need arises to transform all this into
a concrete security plan. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
to reduce the likelihood of a risk event cover a wide swath of topics. The following are elements common to many organizations’
plans:
• Obligations and responsibilities of staff and management
• Chain-of command and accountability structures, security
management teams, and field arrangements
• Specific country security plans, including emergency communications and evacuation plans
• Security phases and corresponding required actions
• Cash handling, incident reporting, information security, medical procedures
• Personnel issues, insurance, travel, site selection and management, visitor security, training, and briefing
• Firearms, kidnapping, and hostage situations
Keeping Yourself Safe
While your task as a manager is to look out for the safety of staff
by taking organizational measures, there are also numerous steps
you can take at an individual level—and you should ensure that
your staff does the same. Normally, United Nations system staff
and consultants joining you in the field will have completed the
mandatory online security training required to get a travel authorization. Other visitors, however, such as staff from bilateral programs or consultants working independently, may not be as well
prepared. It might be good to remind them of things to consider
before traveling.
182
Tips for Personal Safety
• Copy all essential documents (tickets, passport, credit cards, visa pages,
driver’s license, prescriptions), send a scan to yourself in cyberspace, forward a copy to a trusted friend, and pack a copy in your suitcase, separate
from the documents themselves.
• Draw up a “power of attorney” and prepare a will. This may seem exaggerated, but it is the most thoughtful gesture you can make to those who would
survive you, should the worst case scenario occur.
• Make sure you have insurance for emergency medical care, including evacuation by air, as well as life insurance.
• Have a medical check-up; consult the website of the Centers for Disease
Control (www.cdc.gov) or a similar authority to see what precautions you
have to take, and what inoculations may be needed. Do so well in advance.
Take supplies of essential medications, and bring the written prescriptions
in order to satisfy a customs agent. Ask your doctor to prescribe a widespectrum antibiotic.
• Check with embassies or consulates regarding visa requirements. Plan at
least a month ahead as requirements vary by nationality of the traveler and
the process can be long and arduous.
• On arrival in mission area, attend a UN security briefing. Whether it is a
protracted stay or a short visit, there are again a number of precautions
that you should consider in order to stay safe. A consistently good source
of advice is the national staff of your organization, since they know both the
context and the practicalities—where to find things, where to go, where not
to go, what to do, what not to do.
• Respect for local culture becomes more than a professional standard of
conduct—it becomes a security strategy.
• Some ways to reflect situational awareness:
-- Learn basic words of greeting and basic transactions: you are a guest
and people appreciate it when you make an effort to acknowledge
their culture.
-- Dress unobtrusively and try to understand local norms and standards.
-- Avoid situations that might become tricky—political rallies, religious
holidays, large observances or demonstrations; let your hosts or the
national staff of your organization be your mentors.
-- Keep your cash secure—get local currency (use official channels),
and use discretion. Display only small amounts, keep the number of
transactions limited, use the office safe or the hotel safe if possible,
otherwise choose different places for safekeeping, and avoid routine
transactions that are visible and predictable.
-- Develop a mental map of the area, town, and neighborhood—where
one can go safely, where the police can be found, where to go when in
need (e.g., hotels, stores, offices).
Managers need to be continually on the look out to ensure staff
do not become complacent with regard to the implementation
of security measures. An up-to-date understanding of the security situation and good common sense are essential when tasking
183
staff to work outside the confines of UN fortified bases. Additional risk assessments may be necessary before they are sent into
the field. Managers should also ensure that vehicles assigned to
the unit are driven conservatively and with deference to the local
population, as vehicle accidents, particularly those that result in
injury to host country nationals, can have grave consequences.
Should you or your staff venture out of the core area where your
office is located, find out whether one needs any landmine awareness training, or if there are guidelines in case of checkpoints, car
hijackings, or being taken hostage.
Landmines and other unexploded ordnance, such as cluster
bombs, come in different guises. Antipersonnel mines can be
quite small and unobtrusive, activated via slight pressure or a
tripwire. Guidance can be had from the national or UN mine action team. When in doubt, don’t move, and call for help. In particular, it is wise to avoid military equipment, boxes, and vehicles.
The hunt for souvenirs can kill. Should your duties require you to
visit such sites, make sure you are accompanied by appropriately
qualified military or mine action staff.
UN Guidance on Security
Guidance on the management of security challenges is available
for UN system staff at three levels: through a set of online interactive training programs (leading to two levels of certification),
through a detailed Field Security Handbook, and finally, through
a formal set of operational standards.
Completion of the interactive security training is mandatory for
all staff and consultants heading out for field duty stations even
for short visits, and the focus of these courses is to advise staff
how to stay safe. The Field Security Handbook and the operational standards are of particular interest to managers who are
responsible for the safety of others. The principles and best practices described in the previous section have been incorporated
into these UN tools, and they have been translated into structures
based on the overall integrated nature of the UN system’s field
establishments, where, increasingly, premises and equipment,
as well as communications systems, are shared among various
agencies and programs.
At the core of this management framework is the United Nations’
“Minimum Operating Security Standards” (MOSS), a fundamental policy document that establishes field-based criteria for minimum security arrangements in UN field operations. By setting
clear norms, it also establishes an accountability framework for
184
senior managers, both at headquarters and in the field. The MOSS
cover the types of communications gear and equipment required
in regional and country offices, suboffices, vehicles, residences,
and staff “security packs” (ranging from VHF and HF radio transmitters and body armor to blast-resistant film for windows and
back-up power supply systems). The requirements for the implementation of the security plans are equally detailed, describing
procedures, drills, meeting patterns, warden systems, as well as
monitoring, training, and briefing requirements. The importance
of accountability and the chain of command are emphasized.
The concept of a “security chain” is a command-and-control
structure that ensures clear communication and decision making up and down the line. At the UN, it starts with the UnderSecretary-General for Safety and Security. This official, through
the Department for Safety and Security (DSS), is responsible for
risk assessments, security planning, ensuring compliance with
standards at the country level, appointing and training “designated officials” (DOs), chief security advisers, and security management teams (including professional advisers and wardens) for
service at the country level, keeping the MOSS up to date, handling hostage crises, and providing overall leadership to keep the
UN secure. In a country where there is a peacekeeping presence,
the DO will likely be the head of mission or SRSG, with alternates
designated in case the SRSG is out of the mission area.
This security framework also covers the funds, programs, and
agencies of the UN system, which all maintain parallel security
systems that take their guidance from and coordinate with DSS.
Staff members have a legal obligation to comply with all regulations, take the necessary training, and know who their local warden—their closest link in the security chain—is at all times.
Efforts have recently been made in the UN system to update security procedures, including threat assessments and overall risk
management. In 2009, the UN System Chief Executives Board
for Coordination stated that security management plays a crucial
role in enabling the UN to deliver services and that there “should
be no program without security.” The emphasis of the new system is to actively manage risks by clarifying “how to stay,” rather
than merely defining “when to leave.” The key innovation has
been to separate the assessment of threat in a certain area from
mitigation strategies (i.e., the risk in a certain area is not fixed, but
also depends on management interventions).
DSS also determines what the appropriate security level is for
each country, and for various locations within each country. The
Security Level System introduced under the new framework clari185
fies the degree of caution required in a particular area. The security levels, in practical terms, are derived from structured threat
assessments and grade the presence of threats and hazards in
an area. The security levels have been delinked from automatic
measures such as relocations or evacuations of staff that were
attached to the now-defunct security phases system. Many NGOs
follow the DSS guidance, since it is often based on intelligence
gathered from the entire international community, in addition to
local sources.
Since the attacks on UN compounds in Iraq and Algeria, the UN
tends to err on the side of caution. At times, restrictions imposed
as a result of the measures by the security risk management system are questioned by the operational UN agencies, especially
those working on humanitarian relief in crisis zones, who feel
hampered in comparison to their NGO partners. Out of these restrictions, new techniques have arisen, such as “remote control”
operations, whereby risk is transferred solely to local actors.
CASE 1
The Attack on UN Headquarters in Baghdad, 2003
On August 19, 2003, a flatbed truck carrying some 1,000 kilograms of explosives was detonated in front of the Canal Hotel
in Baghdad, where the United Nations had its headquarters.
Twenty-two persons were killed, including the SRSG, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and 150 staff and visitors were wounded. The UN
daily security updates for August 18th and 19th indicated a growing concern for the threat posed by improvised explosive devices
by means of car or truck bombs. In the weeks before, there had
been attacks on several embassies, as well as on NGO and ICRC
personnel. Despite the increased threat, additional measures
to protect UN staff and premises were not taken. Requests for
blast tape to cover the windows and protect staff from flying
glass shards were caught in bureaucratic wrangling. There was
no contingency plan. A US platoon that had earlier protected the
premises had been asked to leave, and US roadblocks had been
removed, as a symbolic gesture to emphasize the UN’s independence from the Coalition Provisional Authority.
A high-level panel, chaired by the former president of Finland,
Martti Ahtisaari (also former USG for Administration and Management in the Secretariat, and former head of the UN peace operation in Namibia), issued a report in November 2003 that was
highly critical of the UN’s security management system, which it
characterized as “dysfunctional” and lacking in both profession186
alism and expertise. A major deficiency identified by the panel
was the lack of accountability for the decisions and positions
taken by UN managers.
The report culminated in a series of recommendations that, once
implemented, changed the UN’s approach to security management, led to the creation of the current Department for Safety
and Security, and to the adoption of a comprehensive set of policy guidelines, norms, and standards. Some of the key recommendations of the panel that shaped this reorganization were the
following:
• Conduct an in-depth review of the UN security system by
independent professionals.
• Create professional assessment tools to identify and analyze
potential threats and risks for UN operations worldwide.
• Introduce a robust security management system with adequate disciplinary measures to counter noncompliance.
• Ensure accountability at all managerial levels for the implementation of security regulations.
• Guarantee adequate and sustained insurance coverage for
staff in high-risk missions.
The principles of accountability and professionalism at the heart
of these recommendations are of immediate relevance to all staff
involved in field operations.
CASE 2
Bomb Attack on UN Headquarters in Algiers, 2007
In the morning of December 11, 2007, a vehicle bomb detonated
at the UN offices in Algiers, destroying the building, killing seventeen UN personnel and two visitors, and severely wounding forty
other people.
As was done in the case of the 2003 Baghdad bombing, a highlevel panel was appointed to investigate this disastrous event,
but with a mandate that allowed it to address the security of UN
personnel and premises worldwide. It found that much had been
achieved to improve the UN security framework in the aftermath
of the Baghdad bombing, but much more was still found to be
inadequate. The Algiers bombing was in fact only the tip of the
iceberg.
While the risk in Algiers had been assessed as low, giving the UN
187
office a level-one ranking, terrorist groups had been carrying out
a number of high-profile attacks in 2006, and security incidents
increased in early 2007, prominently featuring several vehicleborne improvised explosive devices. Staff had long considered
the location of the UN offices as unsafe, and at a meeting of the
local Security Management Team in April 2007, it was agreed to
seek better premises. However, several alternatives proposed to
the Department for Safety and Security (DSS) were rejected, citing standards that were hard to meet in the Algiers real estate
market. While new risk assessments characterized the situation
in Algiers as “critical,” with vehicle-borne suicide attacks “very
likely,” the security classification for Algiers was not changed. A
high-level visit of a DSS official brought no guidance, and no report was prepared. All this, in the eyes of the panel, indicated that
there were systemic weaknesses in the UN’s security management.
The panel did not just focus on Algiers. It visited twenty countries, and interviewed numerous staff, government officials, and
security experts. Some of its key findings and recommendations
returned to points made earlier by its predecessor, some were
new. Especially relevant for field security were the following:
• The establishment of DSS had substantively improved UN
security management, but accountability, leadership, internal
management, and oversight all needed improvement. As decentralization of day-to-day decision making to the country
level was now a guiding principle, more responsibility and
resources needed to be given to the designated official, the
most senior UN system official on site.2
• The perception needed to be addressed that national staff,
who comprise up to 75 percent of all UN field personnel, are
not treated in an equal manner (e.g., regarding insurance
coverage, working conditions, etc.). In addition, transferring
risk to contractors creates another moral dilemma for the UN,
as they are not covered by UN insurance or indemnities.3
• A significant and growing part of the public no longer perceives the UN as impartial and neutral. Instead, there is a
sense that the United Nations “has become an instrument of
powerful Member States to advance agendas that serve their
own interests, rather than those of the global community of
2 United Nations, “Towards a Culture of Security and Accountability: The Report of the Independent Panel on Safety and Security of UN Personnel and Premises Worldwide,” New York,
June 9, 2008, paras. 8-12.
3 Ibid., para. 14.
188
nations.”4 This perception has a negative impact on the security of UN personnel. “What the decision-making bodies
mandate UN entities to do, and how the UN organizes itself
to deliver its services in so many different countries and areas
of activity, are two strategic matters that impact on the perception people around the world have of the United Nations
and thus on staff security.”5
The panel’s recommendations thus went beyond the technical
realm of management to tackle core issues of the United Nations’
image and mandate, illustrating how staff security is also deeply
political.
4 Ibid., para. 20.
5 Ibid., para. 22.
189
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. In the field, security is a manager’s key responsibility, dwarfing
all others.
2. Security management is a matter of brains, not brawn. Good
common sense is as important as up-to-date knowledge of
the security situation. The better you understand the political,
social, economic, cultural, and religious context of your work
environment—and their implications—the safer you are.
3. Acceptance, protection, and deterrence are the three pillars
of security planning, all coming with their own positives and
negatives.
4. Beware of complacency in your staff regarding safety procedures. You are an essential link in the security chain—failure on
your part to identify and mitigate security risks can endanger
all.
5. Conduct an additional security risk assessment if necessary
before sending staff on assignment outside the confines of
UN secure facilities.
6. Always have a flashlight and a radio with you.
190
RESOURCES
United Nations
• United Nations. “Report of the Independent Panel on the
Safety and Security of UN Personnel in Iraq.” New York, October 20, 2003.
• United Nations. “Towards a Culture of Security and Accountability: The Report of the Independent Panel on Safety and
Security of UN Personnel and Premises Worldwide.” New
York, June 9, 2008. Available at www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/terrorism/PanelOnSafetyReport.pdf .
• United Nations. United Nations Field Security Handbook. New
York, 2006. Available at www.peacekeepingbestpractices.
unlb.org/PBPS/Library/Field%20Security%20Handbook%20
-%20FULL.pdf .
• United Nations Department of Safety and Security. “Basic
Security in the Field” and “Advanced Security in the Field.”
Online training programs available at https://dss.un.org .
• United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs. “To Stay and Deliver: Good Practice for Humanitarians in Complex Security Environments.” New York, 2011.
Further Reading
• Brennan, Richard. “Learning the Lessons of September 11:
Terrorism and Beyond.” Emergency Medicine 14, No. 3 (September 2002): 214-215.
• Buruma, Ian and Avishai Margalit. Occidentalism: The West in
the Eyes of Its Enemies. New York: Penguin, 2004.
• Macpherson, Robert. CARE International Safety and Security
Handbook. Atlanta: CARE International, 2004.
• Overseas Development Institute, Humanitarian Practice Network. Operational Security Management in Violent Environments. Good Practice Review No. 8. London, 2010.
• People in Aid. “Safety and Security.” People in Aid Policy
Guides. London, June 2008.
• Stoddard, Abby, Adele Harmer, and Katherine Haver. “Providing Aid in Insecure Environments.” London: Overseas Development Institute, 2006.
• United States Institute of Peace. “Safe and Secure Environment.” In Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction. Washington, DC, 2009, pp. 6-38.
191
• UNICEF. “Security.” In Emergency Field Handbook. New York,
2005, pp. 263-284.
192
10
Financial Management
FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT
Financial management is the planning, allocation, and monitoring of financial resources in an organization. It is a crucial component in the realization of strategies and plans. Finally, financial management, in particular a budget, provides a basis for
performance evaluation. OVERVIEW
Although most mid- to senior-level managers in UN field operations will have a dedicated capacity for finance and budget within
their office, understanding and taking responsibility for financial
resources is as important as managing one’s human resources—
the quality of financial management, ultimately, is an indicator of
an operation’s overall quality. How have resources been raised,
how has their use been planned, how have the goals of the operation been translated into specific activities with a clear price
tag, how have expenditures been prioritized, how have they been
documented and justified? The answers to these questions are all
visible and verifiable.
Member states and other donors increasingly focus on accountability, and in the United Nations, an audit and oversight culture
has evolved that is unforgiving—and rightly so. At the same time,
multidimensional integrated missions, delegation of authority,
austere staffing patterns, and decentralization leave managers
more exposed than ever. Staff members who were brought in
for their specific substantive knowledge or technical skills sometimes find themselves in charge of projects and budgets, becoming financial managers by default.
Financial management does not exist in isolation: the budgeting process is key to any management role, as the proper allocation of resources is tightly linked to overall program planning.
The monitoring and evaluation of program activities, moreover, is
impossible without an understanding of financial indicators. The
next chapter on project management will provide you with tools
for resource mobilization, but it is equally important for you and
your staff to keep in mind financial management principles and
resources for which you are accountable.
In this chapter you will learn the basic principles of financial management and budget processes specific to the UN. You will also
gain basic skills in drawing up budgets, projecting cash flows,
and, subsequently, keeping track of your expenses. Finally, this
196
chapter will introduce you to a number of internal safeguards to
minimize mistakes and prevent misconduct.
What should you get out of this chapter?
• How to apply fundamental principles of financial management, especially
in a UN context
• How to draw up a budget
• How to project cash flows
• How to monitor expenses
• How to use internal financial management safeguards
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
Preparing a Budget
Preparing and monitoring budgets are among the most important financial management skills. Budgets translate strategies
and plans into financial terms and include a forecast of income
and expenditures for a specific period in the future. Furthermore,
they provide an important basis for measuring performance by
comparing the projected to the actual financial performance of
your projects.
There are two types of budgets:
• Revenue budgets show the ongoing income and expenditures over a fixed period of time, usually one year (fig. 10.1).
Excluded are items that may last for longer than one year,
such as vehicles, equipment, and computers.
• Capital budgets estimate the cost of longer-term items,
showing where the money will come from, and spacing it out
over several years.
You can often combine the two by including both types of expenditures into one budget.
A budget is a summary of detailed negotiations and calculations. Before you add a figure for, say, salaries, you will have a
discussion about the number of people you plan to employ, for
how long, at what pay level, with which benefits, and so on—your
worksheet then adds up to the number you put into the budget.
As such, a budget should not be a series of guesses—it should
reflect careful, calculated estimates. This becomes much easier if
you have past data to rely on for reference.
197
Figure 10.1. Example of a basic budget
RURITANIA HEALTH CARE CENTER .
Revenue Budget: January 1–December 31, 2012
INCOME
Amount
Columbia University grant
$50,000
Ruritania government grant
$50,000
UNDP grant
$20,000
TOTAL INCOME
$120,000
EXPENDITURES
Salaries
$40,000
(4 people at $10,000 each per year)
Rent of premises
$24,000
($2,000 per month)
Purchase of medicine
$16,000
Medical supplies
$20,000
Electricity and water
$2,400
($200 per month)
Travelling expenses
$7,600
(car lease, maintenance, gasoline)
Training program
$3,000
(four sessions per year for ten trainees)
Office expenses
$7,000
(lease of computers, printing, cleaning)
TOTAL
$ 120,000
Cash Flow Forecasts
You may have received a grant upfront, in one payment, and all
the money is now in the organization’s bank account. Often, however, donors make payments linked to certain achievements (one
third when a clinic is built, one third after two training courses
are held, and so on). In that case, you will have fixed monthly expenses, but your income will arrive in bits and pieces over time.
198
How do you ensure that you have sufficient cash on hand to pay
the bills at the end of every month or quarter?
To avoid falling short, you must make a projection of your cash
flow. The chart in figure 10.2 below is an example of a simplified, quarterly cash flow projection. You might need to make a
more detailed chart that lays out receipts and expenditures on a
weekly basis.
Figure 10.2. Example of a cash flow forecast
PERIOD
JAN MARCH
APR JUNE
JULY SEPT
OCT DEC
Receipts
Grant Columbia
25,000
Grant Ruritania
20,000
Grant UNDP
10,000
TOTAL .
RECEIPTS
20,000
25,000
10,000
10,000
30,000
45,000
10,000
35,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Rent
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
Medicine
8,000
Expenditures
Salaries
Medical supplies
Electricity, etc.
8,000
20,000
600
600
600
600
4,000
1,200
1,200
1,200
750
750
750
750
Office expenses
4,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
TOTAL .
EXPENDITURES
53,350
19,550
27,550
19,550
-23,350
25,450
-17,550
15,450
Travel
Training
Balance at the end
of the quarter (total
receipts minus total
expenditures)
199
The example above illustrates how you can run into trouble
throughout the course of a project even if you have raised the total funds to match your total project expenses. In the first quarter,
you would run a deficit of $23,350 because your receipts for that
quarter did not fully cover your expenses. Such planning gives
one the opportunity to communicate the situation to funders or
vendors ahead of time and possibly change the timing of any
grants or bills due.
Bank Accounts, Petty Cash, and Cash Books
One of the first steps in mission start-up will be for UN Treasury/
Department of Management at headquarters to open a local bank
account and a mission bank account in New York. A head of office may open an account with assistance from the chief finance
officer. Cashier services will then be established, and safes and
money security procedures put in place, in order for the mission
to be able to pay due salaries and local portions of salaries, including for personnel in field offices. A staff member may be designated by management to look after “petty cash,” in which case
a separate cash logbook or Excel spreadsheet will help to track
it, and a signed receipt should be kept for every payment made.
Establishing Internal Controls
It is important that financial systems are designed to make sure
that as few mistakes are made as possible, and that the opportunities for misappropriation (in fact, theft) are minimized. A qualified accountant may have to inspect your systems once they are
in place, but on an everyday basis the program or project manager remains accountable.
Some rules and management principles can reduce the risk of
misappropriation:
• There should be written policies, procedures, and rules available to deal with financial management, and all staff should
be made aware of them.
• Management should monitor its cash flow and compliance
with the budget on a regular basis to ensure that problems
do not turn into crises. NB: UN field missions only spend (and
therefore monitor) cash once installments have arrived.
• Precise records should be kept and every transaction should
be recorded as it happens. Receipts should back up every
expenditure. Annual financial statements should be accessible for all stakeholders, as well as staff. It may make sense
200
to have a local oversight board, even if that is an informal
arrangement.
• Designate the managers that will be certifying officers (i.e.,
to whom authority to approve disbursal of agency funds has
been delegated), and put in place an (electronic or paper)
approbation system for expenditures, unless it is a recurring
cost, such as salary or rent.
• Larger purchases should be made in line with internal procurement standards. Some donors may impose their own—
UNDP, for example, gives specific procurement guidelines to
its implementing partners, who are often locally established
NGOs.
• Bank accounts should always be in the name of an organization, not an individual. All requests for bank withdrawals,
such as checks, should be signed by two people or by “two
out of three,” whose names and signatures have been deposited at the bank by the senior program manager (the only
one also allowed to make changes). Keep all money in the
bank and never keep more than “petty cash” in the office.
Checkbooks should be locked up.
• If you use cash, keep it secure, in a safe. Only one person, the
“cashier,” should have access to the cash. Receipts should be
kept for each cash transaction.
• Segregation of duties: separate tasks, for example, by making
sure that no person is solely responsible for an entire transaction (e.g., one person to order equipment and another to sign
the check to pay for it).
If there is suspicion of fraud, a professional auditor can be called
upon through the manager’s reporting line. The director of mission support (DMS), who is the person accountable for finance
and budget in a field mission, should be involved in such decisions.
The UN conducts its own audits, not only of financial probity, but
also of the effectiveness of internal financial control systems. The
Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) has oversight responsibilities regarding the resources and staff of the UN through
independent internal audit, monitoring, inspection, evaluation,
and investigation services. Some of the larger field operations
now have resident auditors, rotated regularly who are meant to
provide guidance. The UN Board of Auditors is the “external” audit body of the United Nations and its funds and programs. It reports its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly
201
through the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).
Financial Rules and Regulations of the United Nations
Virtually all international public sector organizations, whether
they are intergovernmental or nongovernmental, have a common set of ground rules that regulate the way they handle their
money. And those rules are equally important at the global and
at the country level.
The United Nations Financial Rules and Regulations (FRR) are
an excellent example and can be considered a good summary
of general principles of solid financial management. Their most
prominent features and principles affecting operations in the
field are the following:
• Delegation of authority: The Secretary-General delegates
to the Under-Secretary-General for Management, and so it
202
goes, all the way down to a finance assistant in a field office. The chain of command has to be clear and uninterrupted
from top to bottom. Staff members are held personally accountable for their actions.
• Accountability for program budgets: Managers are responsible for the preparation of program budgets, defined in terms
of outputs, objectives, and accomplishments expected during the period under review.
• Only the Secretary-General may open bank accounts for the
organization: In other words, at the field level, proper authorization has to be obtained to do so, under the “delegation of
authority” principle.
• Two signatures required on all checks or other payment instructions: This is the first of a series of measures aimed at
minimizing fraud. All checkbooks have to be properly safeguarded.
• Field offices may maintain a small amount of “petty cash”:
The local administrative staff has clear rules how this should
be managed, and how they should account for its use.
• All payments have to be made on the basis of supporting
vouchers or invoices: In addition, documents must be kept
showing that goods or services were received in good order.
This is where the auditors are extremely precise, even when
it comes to small sums.
• What has not been spent must be returned: If there are leftover funds twelve months after a project or program has ended, they must be returned. This ensures reasonably prompt
closure of accounts and activities.
• There must be a firewall between certifying officers and approving officers: The certifying officer gets a request from a
manager to buy or do something, and then has to certify that
there is money in the budget, and that the proposed purchase or activity matches the provisions of the budget. The
approving officer, who should not be in a reporting relationship to the certifying officer, then reserves the money in the
budget (appropriation) and approves payment once services
or goods have been delivered and found suitable.
Procurement
The procurement process is a key component of financial management and in the UN system is governed by four core principles:
203
a. Best value for money (BVM): the optimization of whole-life
costs and quality needed to meet the user’s requirements,
while taking into consideration potential risk factors and
resources available.
b. Fairness, integrity, and transparency: staff members must
adhere to the ethical standards and responsibilities that
apply to procurement activities.
c. Effective international competition: procurement staff
should make every effort to achieve as wide a geographical distribution in procurement as possible and practicable.
d. The interest of the United Nations.
The responsibility for ensuring an effective procurement process is not limited to procurement staff and the staff developing
budgets. Requisitioners, contract managers, finance officers, and
program managers also have key roles and joint responsibilities
during the process of acquisition planning, establishing requirements, and contract management.
For field operations, there is a local procurement committee that
reviews and approves limited expenditures, whereas large commitments have to be approved at headquarters. Staff planning
to request major purchases should take the time to study the
procurement rules and procedures, and understand the timelines
involved. Ensuring that there are sufficient safeguards against
corruption requires a formal and rigorous approach.
The UN procurement process involves a wide range of activities,
including: acquisition planning; drafting; reviewing or approving
specifications, statements of work (SOWs) and terms of reference (TORs); identifying, registering, and evaluating vendors;
preparing and developing solicitations; evaluating bids or proposals; source selection; negotiating price or terms and conditions of contracts; reviewing and approving awards of contracts;
providing legal services, including drafting contracts; signing
contracts and purchase orders; receiving and inspecting goods
or services; performing oversight services; managing contracts;
reviewing vendor performance; certifying, approving, and making
payments pursuant to large and complex contracts; and handling
vendor protests or disputes regarding the procurement process.
Acquisition
Acquisition is the action of purchasing or leasing property, including products, real estate, and services. Planning acquisition
is a cooperative process by which the requisitioner (or program
204
manager) and UN procurement division devise a comprehensive
acquisition plan for fulfilling the requisitioner’s need in a timely
manner and at competitive pricing. Planning includes the development of the overall strategy for managing the procurement
and includes a detailed list of anticipated purchases over a period
of time, usually one year.
The acquisition process consists of the following phases:
a. planning, funding, and definition of requirements;
b. identification of vendors;
c. development of source selection plan, including evaluation
criteria and weighting (if applicable);
d. evaluation and source selection;
e. risk assessment and management;
f. contract management (including vendor performance assessment and ensuring that the vendor complies with the
terms and conditions of the contract).1
1 Adapted from United Nations, Department of Management, “United Nations Procurement
Manual,” Revision 6, March 2010.
205
UN Financial Terminology
The Fifth Committee (administrative and budgetary) is the main committee of
the UN General Assembly (GA) entrusted with responsibilities for administration and budgetary matters. This body considers and approves the budget of
the organization, as well as financial and budgetary arrangements with specialized agencies making recommendations to the agencies concerned.
The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
(ACABQ) is a subsidiary organ of the GA, consisting of sixteen members appointed by the GA who (a) examine and report on the budget submitted by
the Secretary-General to the GA; (b) advise the GA concerning any administrative and budgetary matters referred to it; (c) examine on behalf of the GA the
administrative budgets of the specialized agencies and proposals for financial
arrangements with such agencies; and (d) consider and report to the GA on
the auditors’ reports on the accounts of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies.
Appropriation is the act of setting aside funding for a specific purpose to be
used over a specific period of time. In the case of the UN, funds are appropriated by the General Assembly. Unspent appropriations are surrendered back
to member states.
Assessment is an amount of money each member state must contribute to finance the approved appropriation, in accordance with a “scale of assessment”
based largely on a member state’s per capita gross national income.
Commitment authority is given by the GA to the Secretary-General to incur
expenditures without an appropriation. The authority is usually given for emergency situations, pending detailed review of budgetary proposals.
Contingency funding, set at 0.75 percent of the overall level of the outline, can
be added to the budget to accommodate additional expenditures arising from
program budget implications of mandates or revised estimates of activities
not foreseen in the proposed program budget.
The regular budget finances the GA, the Security Council, the Economic and
Social Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat, as well as
the UN’s special political missions.
The peacekeeping budget finances the peacekeeping missions and is based
on assessments from member states similar to those made for the regular budget but with greater discounts for poorer nations.
Trust funds and special accounts have to be approved by the Secretary-General or by the executive heads of the UN funds and programs to whom this authority has been delegated. They can be “closed” (one or more donors, and no
other donor can join) or “open” (all comers are invited to contribute). Donors
can also specify that funding is supposed to be used for a specific program or
project in line with the mandate.
Voluntary contributions are entirely up to the individual member states to decide whether or not, and how much, to contribute. Voluntary contributions
finance most of the UN’s humanitarian and development funds and agencies.
The financial period is two consecutive calendar years (biennium) for the UN
regular budget, starting on January 1 through December of the following year
(this includes the current financing of special political missions), while the
peacekeeping support account budget is annual and runs from July 1 to June
30 of the following year.
206
UN Financial Terminology Continued
The Peacekeeping Reserve Fund was established in 1992, at a level of $150 million, as a cash flow mechanism to ensure the rapid response of the UN to the
dynamic needs of peacekeeping operations.
Program budget implications statements (PBIs) detail the administrative,
financial, and programmatic changes that the adoption of a draft resolution
would entail.
Revised estimates for additional resources required, are submitted by the
Secretary-General relating to (a) items not included in the proposed program
budget owing to the unavailability of information at the time of preparation of
the proposed program budget; (b) items that were included in the proposed
program budget on which the GA did not act but did request further information; and (c) developments that took place after the preparation of the proposed program budget.
The Working Capital Fund was established in 1946 to provide advances necessary to finance budgetary appropriations, pending the receipt of contributions,
and to finance unforeseen and extraordinary expenses pending appropriation
action by the GA. In 1982 the level of the fund was set at $100 million.
CASE 1
Preparing for a New Budget Cycle
At an August meeting of the senior management team (SMT) in
a UN mission, the director of mission support (DMS) advised that
the mission was about to enter another budget cycle and senior
management needed to start thinking about the mission’s plans
for the next financial period. The SRSG was a little shocked, as
the mission’s budget for the current year was just approved by
the General Assembly in New York. She asked the DMS to brief
the next weekly meeting on the process and the timetable for
submission of the mission’s next budget proposal.
The DMS instructed the chief budget officer (CBO) to put together a short briefing package he could use to brief the SRSG and
the SMT. He also noted to the CBO that there were a lot of new
faces in the SMT from the same time last year, including a new
force commander and a new police commissioner, so the learning
curve might be steep.
The following week the DMS delivered the briefing package prepared by the CBO to the SMT. He told them that this was just an
outline of the process and that very detailed instructions on how
to prepare their budget input in the required RBB format would
follow in mid-September. The mission could expect to receive
some strategic guidance from the Under-Secretary-General for
Peacekeeping in the next few weeks. He stressed that it was very
important that the SRSG’s office then update the mission plan
207
if necessary. The substantive staff and heads of the uniformed
components were told they may need to revise their concept
of operations; in particular, they should identify any changes in
numbers, dispositions, or activity levels. The DMS advised them
that the mission support staff would then work with their teams
to determine the broader resource implications, including any
changes in staffing levels.
There was much discussion around the table on how all this would
be done. The DMS reinforced the message that it was a mission
budget, not a mission support budget, and involved serious input from all components. He recommended to the SRSG that,
although much of the detailed work would be done by the CBO
and his staff, he should appoint a steering committee chaired by
the DSRSG to coordinate and review all budget proposals, as he
would eventually have to sign off on them. The SRSG tasked the
DSRSG to form a steering committee consisting of the chief of
staff, the three component heads, and the CBO as secretary. The
DMS left the meeting thinking they were off to good start, but
much work was yet to come.
CASE 2
Rationalizing Budgets in UNMIT
As Timor-Leste prepared for national elections in 2012, the role of
the UN there was changing, and the government and the UN integrated mission began joint planning for the mission’s withdrawal
foreseen for the end of 2012. A key development in early 2011 was
the handover of responsibilities for the conduct and command of
all police operations to the national police of Timor-Leste.
In preparation for the planned withdrawal, and in a context of
financial austerity, UNMIT proceeded to rationalize its budgeting processes in order to do more with less. UNMIT Chief of Staff
Toby Lanzer commented that “in the past, when formulating budgets, managers were asked to focus on proposing activities that
would help achieve a mission’s mandate. That’s the way it should
be. However, consolidated information on costs was not available
to enable managers to see the full implications of their proposals.
For example, budget tables showed staff numbers but not staff
costs; costs for travel and training, for instance, were linked to
‘travel’ or ‘training’ and not easily apparent to the manager of a
particular team. Furthermore, costing mission activities was the
responsibility of a separate budget unit and was often done only
after implementing teams had agreed on activities.”
208
Lanzer explained the steps taken by the mission to address some
of these challenges: “As a first step in improving the budget
process, we made the full current cost per team transparent to
managers by grouping costs for staff, travel, training, goods, and
services for each team. Knowing the full cost of teams strengthened the knowledge base and accountability of managers. It also
transformed the budget process into a collaboration between
implementing teams and the budget unit. Finally, the mission
used several generic cost-saving techniques. For example, we
eliminated posts vacant for extended periods, adjusted the percentage of posts expected to become vacant due to historical
averages, budgeted certain positions for less than twelve months
where appropriate, and reduced the use of UN aircraft and official vehicles.”
As a result of all these measures, most of which hinged on improved information and stronger accountability, UNMIT was able
to reduce overall costs by 18 percent while minimizing layoffs.
209
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. Financial management deals with the planning, allocation, and
monitoring of scarce financial resources in an organization.
2. Sound financial practices are a key component for ensuring
accountability and are taken extremely seriously at the United
Nations.
3. When drawing up budgets, carefully calculate (or estimate)
every item; do not make uninformed guesses.
4. Make sure to project cash flows to prevent running out of
funds at a particular point in time.
5. Open a bank account as soon as possible in order to have a
written and reliable record of your financial transactions.
6. Continuously monitor all expenses via a cashbook or spreadsheet software and keep a logbook for petty cash expenses.
7. Introduce internal financial controls to minimize mistakes and
ensure maximum accountability.
210
SUMMARY CHECKLIST
Do you always understand every aspect of the
financial documents you are asked to sign by
your staff?
Are you fully involved in the preparation of the
budgets for your field operations?
Monitoring expenses
Do you see clear links between your budget and
your operational objectives?
Do you have a clear idea at all times how your
actual expenditures match, or deviate from, your
budget?
Internal control systems
Preparing a budget
Did I ask myself the right questions?
Have you ever dreaded an impending audit?
Do you keep track of cash flow?
Do you use cash flow monitoring as a tool in
your overall progress evaluation efforts?
Do your procurement procedures make kickbacks difficult, if not impossible?
Are the proper internal financial controls in
place?
211
YES
NO
RESOURCES
UN Resources
• UNHCR. Handbook for Emergencies, 3rd ed. Geneva, 2007.
• UNICEF. Emergency Field Handbook. New York, 2005 (and
documents on enclosed CD-ROM).
• United Nations, Department of Management. “United Nations
Procurement Manual.” Revision 6, March 2010.
• United Nations, Programme Planning and Budget Division.
“Guide to Results-Based Budgeting.” New York: October
1998.
• United Nations Secretary-General. “Financial Rules and Regulations.” UN Doc. ST/SGB/2003/7, May 9, 2003.
• United Nations Secretary-General. “Results-Based Budgeting: Report of the Secretary-General.” UN Doc. A/54/456,
October 11, 1999.
• United Nations Secretary-General. “Review of Arrangements
for Funding and Backstopping Special Political Missions.” UN
Doc. A/66/340, October 12, 2011.
• World Food Programme. Emergency Field Operations Handbook. Rome, 2002.
Further Reading
• Cammack, John. Financial Management for Development:
Accounting and Finance for the Non-Specialist in Development Organisations. Oxford: INTRAC, 1999.
• Carroll, John. Project Management in Easy Steps. Southam,
UK: In Easy Steps, 2009.
• Montana, Patrick J. and Bruce H. Charnov. Management, 4th
ed. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series, 2008.
212
11
Project Management
P R OJ E C T
MANAGEMENT
Project Management is a discipline used to help plan, implement,
monitor, and, ultimately, evaluate a project. It offers important
tools to manage a nonroutine or ad hoc project—an increasingly
common feature of UN peace operations.
OVERVIEW
In any organization, it is important not only to achieve, but also
to show, results. This is simplest in the business world, where results—in the form of sales figures or profit margins—are tangible
and unambiguous. In peacekeeping and peacebuilding contexts,
results are often intangible: a political problem solved, an institutional arrangement reinforced, a security challenge de-fanged to
prevent violence. These are essential achievements. At the same
time, being able to show immediate and concrete benefits for the
people and the institutions of the host country is also necessary.
For this reason, many peacekeeping operations and special political missions are undertaking projects on their own or jointly,
intended to create a “peace dividend” for the host population.
Often, mission budgets include an allocation for financing “quick
impact projects” (QIPs). In addition, integrated peace operations
are increasingly expected to manage complex programs and
projects, funded via trust funds, the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF),
and joint programs with UN agencies and funds. Although the
procedures and guidelines for these arrangements may differ
(see the Resources section at the end of this chapter), the skills
and tools necessary for managing these projects successfully are
similar.
As a result of this emphasis on projects, mission staff are sometimes forced to operate outside of their traditional job functions
and implement projects that require specific managerial skills and
financial accountability. Such projects also have to be managed
in challenging environments with relatively little backstopping
from headquarters, often in coordination with other components
of the mission—military, police, civilian engineering, and finance—
as well as other UN agencies and funds, or NGOs on the ground.
For all these reasons, all mission staff should be well acquainted
with the principles and tools of project management.
Establishing the infrastructure necessary for a field mission to
function and implement its mandate is another area where project management skills are essential. The start-up of a new field
216
mission normally involves multiple projects and mission components (for instance, mission support and the military) that require
coordination at the highest level to ensure that facilities, communications, and support systems for administration and logistics
are brought online as quickly as possible, often in an inhospitable
environment and with shortages in staff and resources.
This chapter presents the basic method to enable a project
team—not just the project manager—to organize its work in a
logical way to achieve the desired objective efficiently and effectively. Project management helps you, the project manager, to
map out where and why you want to intervene, assess the impact
that can be expected from your contribution, and work out what
has to be done, in specific terms, to achieve results in a way that
can be measured.
What should you get out of this chapter?
• How to conduct a situation analysis
• How to develop and design a good project document
• How to prepare a logical framework
• How to implement and manage a project
• How to anticipate risks and manage stakeholders
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
Policies, programs, and projects are all connected, and together
they make up the architecture of an organization’s activities. A
policy is a public commitment to a broad goal, like eliminating
child labor. A program is a comprehensive and coherent set of
projects or actions based on a policy, and it usually involves a
wide range of actors working together. A project is a building
block in such a program. It is more limited in scope and time, and
has clear deadlines. It often works with one target group (e.g.,
children) in a particular sector (e.g., health), in a defined geographical area.
The project cycle consists of four distinct phases:
1. analysis of the situation, including identification of the
problem(s) to be addressed;
2. strategy and project design;
3. project implementation and progress monitoring; and
217
4. impact evaluation and closing.
The phases should be thought of as a cycle: a good project evaluation should highlight lessons that can improve ongoing projects
and lead to the more effective design of future projects.
Figure 11.1. The problem tree
Situation Analysis
A well-designed project starts with a
situation analysis. This includes identifying the problem and assessing
the needs. A helpful way to visualize
the major problems and their causal
relationships is to draw a “problem
tree.” The output of a situation analysis should be a graphical arrangement of problems differentiated according to causes and effects, joined
by a core, or focal, problem. This
technique helps one understand
the context and interrelationship of
problems, and the potential impacts
of targeting projects at specific
problems.
Effects
Problem
Causes
Strategy and Project Design
The second phase in the project cycle is to develop a strategy and
write the project document. This includes the reason the project
is being done, and a description of what will be done, how it will
be executed, who will do it, where, and over what time period.
It describes the situation as it was before the project started, so
you can evaluate its achievements and impact at the end.
To develop your strategy, start with a stakeholder’s analysis (fig.
2), the mapping of a project’s key stakeholders, who they are,
what interests they have in the project (positive or negative), and
how these interests can affect a project. The “stakeholders” in a
project are all the people or entities that will be affected by the
project, or who could make or break the project’s success. They
may be winners or losers, included or excluded from decision
making, users of results, or participants in the process. Mapping
these actors will help you decide what role they should play at
which stage of the project and then help you to build and nurture
relationships with them.
218
Low .
importance
High .
importance
Figure 11.2. Stakeholder’s analysis
High influence
Low influence
Stakeholders who can gain
or lose a lot from the project,
and whose actions can affect
the project’s ability to meet
its objectives.
Stakeholders who stand to
gain or lose a lot from the
project but whose actions
cannot affect the project’s
ability to meet its objective.
These actors are powerful—you
need to develop strong relationships.
These actors lack power, but you
must make sure their interests are
represented.
Stakeholders whose actions
can affect the project’s ability
to meet its goals, but who
have little to gain or lose from
the project.
Stakeholders who have little
to gain or lose from the project, and whose actions have
little influence on the project.
They may be a source of risk, and
unpredictable, so keep an eye on
them.
Just try to keep this group informed.
The stakeholder analysis will help determine both the beneficiaries and the partners—local and national—of the project. You will
need to develop a strategy to engage them. How will you communicate with them? Is a steering committee needed to bring
everyone to the table?
Developing a logical framework or “logframe” is the next step in
the project design phase. The logframe is the central tool you will
use to plan your activities. Logframes can be very simple or quite
elaborate, but always include at least four main elements: (a) objectives, (b) outputs, (c) activities, and (d) inputs. The logframe
ensures a logical relationship between these elements.
a. An objective (or outcome) is a simple expression of a desired end-state that relates to your initial problem. For example, if the problem is that 200 children between the ages
of seven and twelve can’t read in a certain village, the objective could be that 200 children in our village between the
ages of seven and twelve will be taught to read. Objectives
can be either long term or short term. They can be broad
or more specific and time-bound. Some managers use the
terms “goals” (long term, broad) and “purpose” (short
term, concrete) to distinguish between types of objectives.
Some donors and aid agencies require that the objectives
set out in a project document meet the “SMARTER” criteria, referenced earlier in this book (see the chapter on plan219
ning). Objectives should be: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound, ethical, and recorded.
b. Outputs are the actual products that will lead to the stated objectives. Outputs result from the project activities.
Examples of outputs might be curricula, reports, policies,
training modules, wells, buildings, etc.
c. Activities are the actions undertaken to produce the
desired outputs; they are the things that will be done, not
the results themselves. The key term is “to do”—
organize, develop, design, build, commission, and so
on. A good way to set out your activities is through a
work plan (also called a Gantt chart). The first draft is
part of your project document, and once implementation starts, you continue to update and adjust the
work plan, as things never work out exactly as planned.
Carefully consider which activities can be undertaken at
the same time, and which have to be done sequentially
(you can’t paint a room until the walls are up). Estimate
carefully how long each activity will take. Things typically
take longer than expected, so adjust accordingly.
d. Inputs are the resources, staff, funds, equipment, expertise,
etc., necessary for carrying out the activities. The inputs
shape your budget, as each element needs to be costed.
Henry Laurence Gantt (1861–1919) was a mechanical
engineer, management consultant, and industry
advisor. He developed Gantt charts in the second
decade of the twentieth century as a visual tool to
show scheduled and actual progress of projects.
Accepted as a commonplace project management
tool today, particularly since the spread of personal
computers in the 1980s, it was a radical concept and
an innovation of worldwide importance in the 1920s. Gantt charts
were first used on large construction projects like the Hoover Dam,
started in 1931, and the interstate highway network, which started
in 1956.
220
Figure 11.3. Gantt chart
ACTIVITIES
January
Weeks
1
2
February
3
4
5
6
7
A.
Finalize
design & bill
of quantities
B.
Get
necessary
authorizations
C.
Launch
tendering
process
D.
Select
contractor
company
E.
Materials
brought to
site
F.
Building
construction
(school)
G.
Finishing
work (paint,
etc.)
H.
Evaluation &
certification
of work
I.
Inauguration
of school
with local
& national
authorities
221
March
8
9
10
April
11
12
13
14
15
16
The final element of your project design is the budget. Make sure
that your own contributions are reflected—if they are in-kind
(e.g., time spent finding good people for your team), put a price
on them. Below is a simplified budget with some of the typical
budget lines:
Figure 11.4. Sample budget
Category
Item
Number of
items
Unit cost
(USD)
Total cost
(USD)
Personnel
(staff and
consultants)
Project
manager
1 (for two
months)
3,000
month
6,000
Contracts
(commercial, grants,
services)
Warehouse
rental
2 (for two
months)
500
month
2,000
Training
For national
partner
2 sessions
300
session
Transport
Trucks
2
(two weeks)
500
week
Supplies
and commodities
Reintegration
kits
1,000
40
Equipment
Computer &
printer
2
1,000
set
2,000
Travel
Plane ticket
1
1,500
1,500
Monitoring
& evaluation
Set cost: 5% of budget
2,700
Indirect
cost (or
overhead
cost)
Set cost: 11% of
budget
6,200
600
2,000
40,000
kit
TOTAL
222
63,000
Finally, it is time to create an overview of the entire plan, and introduce some tools to refine the planning process: assumptions,
risk assessments, and objectively verifiable indicators.
a. Assumptions are those conditions outside the control of
the project but critical for its success (e.g., a supportive
government, adequate legislation, continuing peace in the
area, etc.).
b. Risk assessment is required to acknowledge that something can go wrong: the government may be replaced by
a less favorable one, local staff may fear for their safety in
joining your project, the security situation may deteriorate,
etc. Risks should be part of your project plan. Generally,
the risks are not very likely at the moment—otherwise you
would not propose the project.
c. Indicators also need to be identified (following the
SMARTER criteria) when you develop your logical framework, which will allow you to determine whether you have
achieved the objectives (or outcomes) that you expected,
whether you have delivered all the outputs you planned,
and whether all the activities on your plan have in fact been
completed. You should also develop or identify tools to
verify these indicators.
Use these elements to create an overview of the entire plan in the
form of a logframe. A logframe in a project document might look
similar to figure 5 overleaf.:
223
Figure 11.5. Logical framework
Description
Objectively
verifiable
indicators
(OVIs)
Means of
verification
(MOV)
Assumptions and
risks
Goal
(general
objective)
Wider
problem
that the
project
will help to
resolve
Changes
in the
extent or
severity of
the problem
Statistical
data or
expert
analyses
over time;
evaluations
Can be
linked to
security,
government
policies
Purpose
(specific
objectives)
Immediate
impact
envisaged
to the
project area
or target
group; i.e.,
the change
or benefit to
be achieved
by the
project
Things that
can be
measured:
test results,
survey results showing levels of
satisfaction,
changes in
behavior,
etc.
Conduct
tests, do
surveys,
compare
baseline
data with
current data
Stakeholders committed, funding
not interrupted, staff
selected
have the
expected
competencies
Expected
results
(outputs)
Specific
deliverable
results
of the
activities
undertaken—meant
to achieve
objectives
Number or
frequency
of services
provided,
percentage
of beneficiaries treated,
studies
completed
Keep records of all
activities,
levels of
participation, and
so on; track
reports
Access to
beneficiaries assured,
sources for
records are
reliable,
studies are
meaningful
Activities
Lists the
numerous
things that
need to
be done
to achieve
the results
expected
Mainly
quantitative data,
and data re:
timeliness
or quality
Detailed
management tracking, record
keeping
Site selection or
selection
of target
group allowed work
to proceed
in expected
conditions
Inputs
The equipment, staff,
vehicles,
sites, etc.,
required
Time of
arrival,
condition of
goods, qualifications of
staff
Minutes of
meetings,
procurement and
personnel
records,
operational
logs
Audit systems and
oversight
tools sufficient to
prevent
fraud or
kickbacks
224
Project Implementation and Progress Monitoring
The third stage in the project management cycle is the implementation of the project. Implementation will be guided by the strategy and the workplan already developed. Monitoring activities
will take place during the implementation. (See the next chapter
on monitoring and evaluation for more on both processes). Simply put, monitoring is a continuous internal process, conducted
by the project manager, to check on the progress against the predetermined plan—the logframe. You can use the Gantt chart to
monitor activities. Regular reports on project implementation are
the product of a monitoring process. This kind of careful watching makes it possible to catch problems before they become unmanageable and to take corrective action before it is too late.
Impact Evaluation and Closing
Evaluation and closing comprise the final stage of the project
cycle. Evaluation is the act of checking whether you are achieving, or are likely to achieve, your objectives. Evaluations focus on
effects and the overall effectiveness of the projects or programs.
They can be carried out using audits, inspections, and investigations both internally—by specialized units within your organization—or externally.
Monitoring and evaluation are critical. Your donors, your stakeholders, and most of all you as project manager or member of a
project team have an interest in how the implementation of the
project is progressing, and whether it achieved the results you
had intended.
The closing of a project is often overlooked but requires proper
preparation, as it is not only an administrative process of ensuring
proper closure of all project-related contractual obligations but
also implies recognition of deliverables by all stakeholders and
the documenting of lessons learned (see the chapter on knowledge management) and archiving.
225
226
What the project
produces in the
short term
Steps taken to
implement
the project
MONITORING & EVALUATION
SMARTER indicators
OUTPUTS
Identify the
problem & assess
the needs
Effectiveness of the process
SMARTER indicators
Long-term changes in
behavior, attitude, changes
in the “real world”
OUTCOME/IMPACT
Analyze
situation & map
stakeholders
LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Decide on
strategy
& approach
ACTIVITIES
Design
logical
framework
Both the implementation process & short-term results
INPUTS
Resources, staff,
funds, facilities,
supplies, etc.
Formulate
the project
document
Start by identifying the problem & defining the goal (outcome/impact) & objectives (outputs)
PROJECT DESIGN
Figure 11.6. Summary of the project cycle
CASE 1
Managing UNMIK Start-Up in the Field
Within days of NATO troops occupying Kosovo, the first civilian and UNPOL elements of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) began to deploy across the
Kosovo-Macedonia border. The start-up team of a few substantive staff and about forty support personnel immediately established the mission headquarters in a former military headquarters
complex in the center of Pristina. Essential services such as power, water, and communications were virtually nonexistent, either
as a result of war damage or just a lack of maintenance and staff
to run them. Support-staff priorities were the establishment of a
secure and functioning mission HQ and four regional headquarters in the same locations as the KFOR sector headquarters. This
work took four to six weeks and allowed a skeleton UNMIK staff
to deploy and start the planning on the ground for a mission of
10,000 personnel, 7,000 of them international police.
As well as establishing its own infrastructure, the mission had to
provide functional facilities for the future provincial government,
government departments, and municipalities. Ten 100-person police camps had to be built for formed police units, together with
the refurbishment of police stations throughout the province. The
task of planning and managing the delivery of fully functional facilities, services, and communications for UNMIK was given to the
chief of integrated support services (CISS). Fortunately for the
CISS, the section chiefs were of the highest caliber and quickly
got their heads around the magnitude of the tasks ahead of them.
With much of the work to be done concurrently and dependent
on the delivery of equipment, supplies, and building materials
into the province, as well as a build-up in international and national staff, the CISS decided to take a project management approach to manage the planning and oversight of what would be
multiple concurrent projects through the development of a Gantt
chart for key resources. This allowed choke points to be identified
in time to prevent delays. It also gave mission senior management a timescale on which to plan the deployment of substantive
staff and UN police. One P4 officer was appointed full-time to the
task of keeping the chart up to date through regular coordination meetings with section chiefs and through attendance at CISS
management meetings with key staff. At its height, more than
thirty projects were being monitored, and more than 300 activities tracked. Key resources and equipment such as prefabricated
buildings, generators and cranes were tracked on the Gantt chart.
The chief engineer was given the important task of ensuring a
227
facility was fully functional (power, water, communications, IT, security, etc.) at handover.
Of course, flexibility was required. Priorities changed on numerous occasions, and the plan and allocation of resources had to
be adjusted accordingly; however, the discipline of having a plan
meant this was not done lightly. The CISS and his management
team were constantly visiting worksites to monitor progress and
identify coordination issues, especially those that relied on procurement from within the region or delivery of materials and
equipment from the United Nations Logistics Base (UNLB). Good
planning and coordination of projects resulted in the mission being able to rapidly deploy within twelve months and begin the
task of fulfilling its mandate.
CASE 2
Reducing Prison Overcrowding in Haiti and Employing
QIPs in Support of Mission Objectives
Massive overcrowding in Haitian prisons is a long-standing concern that was severely exacerbated by the earthquake on January 12, 2011. Thousands of detainees escaped or simply walked
out of the prisons when the earthquake struck, and many detainees were rearrested on a questionable legal basis and placed
back into even more limited prison space. At the national prison
(PCPP) in the capital Port-au-Prince, the average space per prisoner fluctuated in 2010 between 0.25 and 0.35 square meters,
falling inhumanely below international standards. Only slightly
less extreme conditions were encountered at most other prison
facilities throughout the country.
The efforts of the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)
and the UN country team to develop a proposal to address issues of prison overcrowding commenced, comprised of two
complementary components: judicial measures and rebuilding of
the damaged national prison. While judicial measures consisted
mostly of capacity-building programs by MINUSTAH’s Justice
Section experts and other non-UN actors (helping to reconstitute
lost files, prioritize cases, and deal with certain types of simple
cases via an expedited process), the rebuilding of the prison was
more challenging given that the mission did not have donor money to support construction projects.
The mission thus decided to use quick impact projects (QIPs) in
support of the construction projects no other international donor was willing to fund. The 2007 DPKO/DFS Policy Directive
228
on Quick Impact Projects defines QIPs as follows: “Quick Impact
Projects are small-scale, rapidly-implementable projects, of benefit to the population. These projects are used by UN peacekeeping operations to establish and build confidence in the mission, its
mandate, and the peace process, thereby improving the environment for effective mandate implementation.” QIPs are normally
limited to $25,000, but in the case of Haiti after the earthquake,
the mission was authorized to submit QIPs for up to $100,000.
As a first step, the construction project at the national prison was
developed and endorsed by the Haitian Directorate of Penitentiary Administration (DAP). The next step was to find a reliable
organization that could implement the project. While some MINUSTAH military contingents could have been used for implementation, they were already overcommitted. The International
Organization for Migration (IOM) was chosen instead, based on
their past experience in rehabilitating buildings in Haiti. While
IOM was implementing the project, regular joint visits by the UN
and the DAP ensured that timelines were kept and construction
plans respected. Regular coordination meetings were also held
together with all other actors involved in the national prison, including the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC),
but also other UN actors such as UNDP and the Human Rights
component of the mission, to ensure coherence in the overall
support to the DAP.
Through the use of QIPs, the mission was able to complement
other capacity-building projects, and support incremental progress in the Haiti corrections system. This case also highlights the
importance of building synergies between different potentially
complementary projects and ensuring coordination among the
many international actors in support of national authorities.
(See also United Nations Peacekeeping Best Practices Section et al., “Lessons Learned Study:
Management of Quick Impact Projects,” January 2011.)
CASE 3
Setting Up, Managing, and Handing Over a Mission Trust
Fund in Support of the Détachement Intégré de Sécurité
The United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and
Chad (MINURCAT) was established in 2007 primarily for the
purpose of contributing to the protection of civilians in eastern
Chad. One of the mandates of Resolution 1778 (2007) was for
MINURCAT to select, train, advise, and provide support to elements of the Chadian police force and gendarmerie who would
eventually take part in the Détachement Intégré de Sécurité
229
(DIS), tasked with policing refugee and IDP camps, as well as key
towns in eastern Chad, in particular those towns and major roads
used by humanitarian agencies. Despite some shortcomings, DIS
has been a relatively successful experiment of a nationally-owned
and internationally-supported security structure for the protection of civilians.1
Beyond training the DIS elements, the UN Police had to provide
for all the necessary logistics, not least with more than 100 cars
purchased and twenty police posts and stations built, as well
as special allowances for 850 Chadian police officers and gendarmes assigned to the DIS.
In line with the resolution, the mission set up a trust fund specifically dedicated to supporting the activities of the DIS and received a financial contribution of $34.8 million for the 2008–2010
period from a group of donors. A trust fund unit was set up within
the mission to manage the funds, and the mission Joint Logistics
Operations Centre (JLOC) coordinated the actual logistical support to the DIS.
While the DIS became viable from an operational perspective, its
sustainability following the departure of MINURCAT at the end
of 2010 warranted considerable attention. In preparation for its
withdrawal, the mission prepared a plan for the consolidation of
DIS and progressive handover of administrative, financial, and
logistical functions to the Chadian government. However, at the
request of the government of Chad, and as a transition from the
trust fund, UNDP started administering a “basket fund” in support
of procurement and operations of the DIS, while UNHCR provides
support to DIS for day-to-day operations, such as management
and maintenance of vehicle fleet and upkeep of facilities.
A lesson to be drawn from the DIS experience is that sustainability requirements—and resources to support them—should be
planned from the first stage of conception and the principle stringently adhered to throughout the project’s development.
1 For lessons learned, see United Nations Secretary-General, “Report of the Secretary-General
on the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad,” UN Doc. S/2010/611,
December 1, 2010, section X.
230
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. Project management starts with understanding the context
and analyzing the situation.
2. The project should always contribute to furthering the organization’s objectives.
3. Make sure your project will actually achieve the objectives you
set out (using a sound logical framework).
4. Make sure your project is properly staffed (team) and financed
prior to launching it.
5. Always plan on the conservative side for work plans and timetables.
6. Project management does not stop with the selection of an
implementing partner.
7. Managing expectations of all stakeholders through effective
communication is essential.
8. Learning—through monitoring and evaluation and teamwork—
is a key to project success.
9. The environment and situation on the ground may change,
and the project can change too.
10.Do no harm, and always measure the impact of your actions.
231
SUMMARY CHECKLIST
Did I ask myself the right questions?
Will this project contribute to furthering the
mission’s mandate?
Will it contribute to peace and stability in the
area concerned (a “do no harm” approach)?
Project description .
& implementing arrangements
Situation analysis
Have I studied other similar past or existing
projects and their lessons learned?
Do I add value in taking on this project? Is
there anyone else doing this already?
Did I draw a problem tree?
Did I consider all stakeholders and how the
project affects them? Do I have a communication strategy for them?
Did I consider the situational review (socioeconomic and gender considerations)?
Does the project tackle the problem as analyzed in the problem tree?
Did I create a workplan (or Gantt chart)?
Do I have the resources to achieve the objectives (number of staff, skills, funds)?
Is the timeline realistic?
Have I properly identified the target groups?
Will my indicators adequately measure the
outcomes? Are my indicators SMARTER?
Have I built the right partnerships within the
mission and outside?
Did I consider the assumptions and risk assessment?
Feasibility .
& sustainability
How can I address risks and unintended consequences?
Is this project cost-effective?
Is the project sustainable? Have national
stakeholders taken ownership of the project?
Have I made handover arrangements?
Did I take into account the interests of vulnerable groups?
232
YES
NO
RESOURCES
United Nations
• United Nations. “Guidelines: UN Strategic Assessment.” May
2010.
• United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations and
Department of Field Support. “DPKO/DFS Guidelines: Programme Management.” 2010.
• United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations and
Department of Field Support. “DPKO/DFS Guidelines: Quick
Impact Projects (QIPs).” March 2009.
• United Nations Development Programme. Handbook on
Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results. New York: United Nations, 2009.
• United Nations Peacebuilding Fund. “Guidelines for Applying
to the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund (PBF).” October
2009.
Further Reading
• Carroll, John. Project Management in Easy Steps. Southam,
UK: In Easy Steps, 2009.
• European Commission, Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid (ECHO). “Manual: Project Cycle Management.” June
2005.
• OECD Public Management Service. “Best Practice Guidelines
for Evaluation.” PUMA Policy Brief No. 5. May 1998.
233
12
Evaluation
E VA LUAT I O N
Evaluation is a core process of any organization, supporting effective planning and program management; improving accountability; and helping the organization learn and improve. It is essential at all levels of the organization.
OVERVIEW
Given the vast mandates, resources, and often heavy footprints of
UN peace and security interventions, it is essential to understand
what the impacts of a peace operation are, as well as whether
planned results are being achieved. This supports reflection and
learning by the member states, governing bodies, management,
and staff, as well as national stakeholders, on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of UN activities.
Many different things can be evaluated: activities, projects, programs, strategies, policies, entire organizations, etc. This chapter
will focus on three evaluation tasks: project and activity assessments, impact evaluations, and strategic-level benchmarking. It
describes the difficulties managers are likely to face in conducting or commissioning an evaluation, and the challenges inherent
in a rigorous evaluation of impact in postconflict contexts.
What should you get out of this chapter?
• An understanding of the importance of proper evaluation
• How to plan project/activity evaluation, impact evaluations, and strategiclevel benchmarking
• How to avoid the “before-after fallacy”
• How to demonstrate effectiveness with an impact evaluation
• How to design impact evaluations so that they are most effective for accountability and learning
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE
The critical functions of evaluation are to (a) support strategic
and evidence-based management, (b) improve accountability,
and (c) assist organizational learning.
236
Strategic Management
As emphasized in other chapters: UN field missions work in dynamic environments. The key tasks of management—planning,
organization, project management—are thus not “one-offs” but
are rather iterative over time. Evaluation provides the evidentiary
basis to assess whether changes are needed, ranging from specific programs all the way up to the overall mandate of the mission.
This takes on particular importance in complex operations where
there are many UN-system and other actors on the ground. Wellmanaged evaluation provides a shared diagnostic, which is often
an indispensable starting point for a shared strategy.
Accountability
There are often explicit legal and policy requirements for the
evaluation of UN activities. These include, for example:
• Results-Based Budgeting requirements;
• mandates from the Security Council to benchmark progress;
• the policy framework of the Integrated Missions Planning
Process (IMPP); or
• program evaluations by the Office for Internal Oversight Services, which focus on the performance of individual peacekeeping or political missions.
Underlying these formal requirements, there is a broader accountability to the principals and the host country population.
The group of principals includes the UN Security Council and
General Assembly, which both play roles in deciding the parameters of UN field missions. It usually also includes donors contributing specific resources, such as voluntary contributions for
program activities or trust funds underwriting mission support
requirements.
These stakeholders can and do set specific legal requirements for
evaluation, whether through mission mandates or funding / project agreements. But for in-country management, evaluation can
also be a “force multiplier” (or even a marketing tool). The time
and resources spent to assess whether results are being achieved
are essential to ensure that support keeps coming. And when assessment is done well, it can channel that support in the right
directions at the right times.
The host country population includes those who are supposed to
237
be helped by mission activities. The specific group may be very
narrow or very broad depending upon the scope of the evaluation, ranging from a specific community targeted by a project to
the whole country affected by a peacekeeping operation.
Learning
This function is intended to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of activities. Effectiveness is judged by the extent to
which benefits were realized over and above any negative consequences of the program. Efficiency is judged by the net benefits
relative to the cost of program inputs.
In both respects, the learning function of evaluation means identifying areas for improvement—getting a sense of what works
and what doesn’t. These can broadly be called lessons learned,
and answer questions such as the following:
1. W
hat kind of management structure provides the right incentives? What structure helps to ensure good problem solving
and decision making rather than hinder it?
2. H
ow can we design activities to increase positive impact? For
example, should they be sequenced in a particular way? Are
certain benefits more significant or visible than others? Are
there positive inter-relationships (synergies) between different activities that could be encouraged?
3. H
ow can activities be designed so that beneficial changes are
sustainable beyond the direct involvement of the mission?
These lessons can be used to modify ongoing activities or programs or to design new ones in the future.
Organizing for Evaluation
The best evaluations are prospective, meaning that they are initiated at the start of an activity, and not retrospective, meaning
that they are initiated only after the activity is finished. Prospective evaluations ensure that those doing the evaluation know exactly what is happening in the activity.
Within a planning process it is essential to have a “baseline” as
a point of comparison. Policy guidance such as the DPKO/DFS
“capstone doctrine” accordingly emphasizes that considerations
for transition and drawdown should be factored in from the very
start of mission planning. The Integrated Missions Planning Process sets out specific expectations in this regard.
238
Articulating a Theory of Change
A “theory of change” is an explanation of your expectations about
how activities or projects will ultimately translate into meaningful
outcomes. This is the basis for sound impact evaluation.
For example, community reconciliation efforts might be centered on interethnic community dialogue meetings. The theory
of change is that dialogue will help community members to learn
new things about their common interests, and thus help to overcome mistrust across ethnic lines. Evaluation then has three focal
points:
(i) Outputs: that meetings occur, and are attended.
(ii) Theory of change: whether learning occurs at these
meetings.
(iii) Impact: whether levels of trust actually increase.
Being explicit about your theory of change helps to focus the
evaluation and assess whether the program is working as expected.
Stakeholders
Those who need to be involved must also be carefully considered
at the design phase. A large-scale evaluation will invariably implicate multiple parts of the mission, usually other parts of the UN
system, and very often other actors. Most notably these include
the following:
• The host government. For some interventions, it may be important to have an evaluation that is independent of the host
government. For others, it may be imperative to secure the
buy-in and engagement of the host government, particularly when there are questions of transition and handover of
responsibilities from the mission. (And in some cases, both
these statements are true.)
• The UN system in-country. Most peacekeeping and political
missions are now formally integrated. In practical terms, a
shared diagnostic is usually the best starting point for shared
programs, or for shared strategy. The Integrated Missions
Planning Process (IMPP) sets out specific expectations in this
regard.
• Authorizing actors. This includes those headquarters offices
that interface directly with the Security Council and member states. Above all, country-level benchmarking must connect effectively with processes at HQ level. (For example, the
239
technical assessment missions that usually precede the renewal of a peacekeeping mandate.)
Beyond those who are directly involved, also consider who might
be interested in the findings. This may include humanitarian actors, advocacy groups like Human Rights Watch or International
Crisis Group, or diplomatic partners.
Case study 3 below provides one example of process design for
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which built upon integrated missions planning teams comprising the UN peacekeeping
mission (MONUSCO) and the UN agencies, funds, and programs.
Types of Evaluation
For an evaluation to deliver what you want, you need to be clear
about your goals. This section covers three such goals:
1. m
onitoring whether activities occurred as planned, and if they
were relatively cost-effective;
2. a
ssessing the true impact of an activity, and lessons for the
future; and
3. t racking the overall strategic picture, either for a specific sector or the country as a whole.
Evaluation of Delivery
There are two main perspectives for assessing the delivery of activities and projects: a beneficiary assessment and a performance
evaluation.
A beneficiary assessment measures conditions among those
receiving benefits, directly or indirectly, from the activity. It addresses the following questions:
• Are the intended outputs reaching the intended beneficiaries?
• Are the beneficiaries satisfied with what they are receiving?
• Is the activity generating any ill will in the targeted community or elsewhere?
• How are the conditions of beneficiaries changing over time?
• Is the activity providing benefits that are relevant to the target community’s needs?
• Will changes brought about by the activity last beyond the
240
period of direct engagement?
Beneficiary assessments can help managers understand whether the assumptions behind the design of the activity were good
ones, whether the goals are valid, and whether immediate needs
are being addressed appropriately.
They may use either quantitative (statistical) information or qualitative (narrative) information. Information may be gathered using management information systems or activity logs, questionnaires administered to beneficiaries, focus group discussions, or
interviews with key informants.
Performance evaluation is a second perspective on activities and
projects, which focuses on the individuals and organizations who
are the implementers. It answers the following questions:
• In implementing the activity, did the organization perform as
efficiently as possible, and if not, why?
• Did decision-making processes help to reduce mistakes? Did
they help to ensure that all stakeholders’ interests were taken
into account? Or, did they unduly obstruct timely and effective problem-solving?
Performance evaluation is usually undertaken after the activity is
finished, but it may be done at points in time during the activity
period. The evaluation is usually based on interviews with staff,
quantitative data such as budget execution reports, and qualitative information such as internal after-action reports.
Performance evaluations often also include vignettes that describe specific successes or failures that occurred during the
program. These vignettes are used to suggest lessons for future
management practice. DPKO’s Best Practices Section publishes
this type of material.
Impact
Evaluating impact is more ambitious and more technically challenging than evaluating project delivery. It tries to answer the following questions:
• For the people targeted by the activity, would their well-being have been worse, better, or pretty much the same had the
activity never taken place?
• Were there any indirect or unintended effects, whether good
or bad, due to the activity?
241
• Were the benefits of the activity sufficient to justify the costs?
• What kinds of people benefited most from the activity?
• What strategies are effective for making the activity more
beneficial?
According to the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation,
“high quality impact evaluations measure the net change in outcomes that can be attributed to a specific program. Impact studies help inform policy as to what works, what does not, and why.”
(See www.3ieimpact.org)
Methodology
Broadly speaking, impact is the difference between beneficiaries’
well-being after the activity is finished, and the estimate of beneficiaries’ well-being had there been no activity.
This is a subtle and often misunderstood concept. People sometimes define impact as the “difference between beneficiaries’
well-being before and after an activity.” This can be called the
“before-after fallacy.” It is a fallacy because many things affect
how beneficiaries’ well-being changes over time. We cannot automatically attribute all these changes (whether positive or negative) to the activity.
Figure 1 illustrates this. It shows a case where the “before-after
fallacy” would result in an unfair judgment about the activity.
The well-being of beneficiaries (the “treatment group”) goes
down over time. A naïve interpretation would be that the activity
caused harm. We avoid this incorrect conclusion by looking at a
“control” group. What we see is that both groups experienced a
decline in their well-being. However, the decline is less severe for
the beneficiaries than for the control group. Therefore, the activity in fact had a positive impact.
Measure of well-being
Figure 12.1. Illustrating the before-after fallacy
Better
Program beneficiaries
(treatment group)
Control group
(not receiving
program benefits)
Year 1
Year 2
242
Year 3
Because of this problem, the gold standard for impact evaluation
is a randomized controlled trial. This is the approach preferred
for clinical and medical evaluation, and sometimes in education
and development settings. It requires the random selection of the
group to be targeted by an intervention. The “control group” is
then the people who were left out. Because the selection is random, the two groups should statistically be the same except for
the intervention. In consequence, we can fairly attribute differences in outcomes to that intervention.
Is this model feasible for development, postconflict peace and
security, or humanitarian programs? Sometimes it is, and often it
isn’t. Randomization can be infeasible in some postconflict and
humanitarian contexts, either because it is unethical or politically impossible to limit interventions to specific areas; or because
there is simply a need to act quickly.
Designing Programs to Allow for Rigorous Impact Evaluation
The ideal is to identify a comparison group at the start of the
activity. There are two types of strategies to do this. The first is
to design the program itself in such a way as to allow for a rigorous impact evaluation. The second is to exploit almost-random
variation and use controlled comparisons for a “quasi-random”
comparison.
Full randomization is always the strongest method. Potential
beneficiaries can be narrowed down to a pool of eligible individuals, communities, or organizations. In some cases, the number of
potential beneficiaries may be much greater than the number of
people that the program can serve. A lottery system is then used
to determine who receives benefits and who does not.
The impact evaluation then tracks outcomes among those selected as well as those not selected. It uses differences between
these two groups to determine impact, either for the program as
a whole or for different approaches within the program. A case
study at the end of this chapter provides an example of a randomized impact evaluation, studying the impact of a communitydirected reconstruction program in eastern Liberia.
Quasi-Random Strategies
• Matched comparisons: The idea behind this approach is simple: create a pseudo-control group by matching each beneficiary with someone or something that resembles the benefi243
ciary in important ways but is not a beneficiary. In the case
of a program that operates at the household or community
level, one would match beneficiaries with non-beneficiaries.
In the case of a regional or national-level program, one could
create a so-called synthetic match by using information from
comparable regions or countries. Then, one tracks the outcomes of the beneficiaries and the matched counterparts.
Impact is estimated as the difference in outcomes between
these matched units. The second case study below shows an
example of a matched comparison impact evaluation, studying community-level impacts of security provision by UNMIL
peacekeepers in Liberia.
• Natural experiments and fortuitous accidents: Sometimes,
we can use variation due to nature or unanticipated occurrences to obtain a situation that resembles an experiment.
For example, a recent impact evaluation of ex-combatant
reintegration in Burundi took advantage of the fact that a
bureaucratic dispute between one of the implementing partners and the government resulted in nearly a third of the program’s beneficiaries having their benefits withheld for about
a year. The impact evaluation conducted a survey during this
period of disruption, using those whose benefits were being
withheld as a pseudo-control group to compare with those
whose benefits suffered no such disruption.
Impact Evaluation Without a Comparison Group
In some cases, it would seem impossible to identify or construct
a comparison group. An obvious example is the measurement of
the impact of an activity that is administered at the national level.
There are approaches that can be tried in these situations, although generally they cannot reach the level of rigor of the approaches already discussed. One approach is to try to identify
changes that could only plausibly occur as a result of the activity,
and then to track outcomes to see if these changes happen. Such
a strategy can benefit a great deal from qualitative information
from beneficiaries who can provide details about how, exactly,
the program has affected their well-being. The weakness relative
to using a comparison group is that this approach relies on more
assumptions; there is no way to say for sure whether an outcome
is exclusively attributable to the program.
Another approach is to use pre-activity information (“baseline”
information) and the opinions of experts and informants to project what would have happened with no program, and then to
244
track outcomes against this benchmark. These strategies are
what national governments sometimes do in assessing the impact of, for instance, tax laws, in which case economic models
are used to predict what would have happened had there been
no policy change. The obvious weakness of this approach is that
there is no way to validate these projections.
Benchmarking & Strategic Assessment
UN missions are directed to monitor and report on the in-country
situation in a number of ways. This may relate to specific issue
areas: human rights, humanitarian access, or democratic space,
for instance. For larger peacekeeping and political missions, it
is now a common practice for the Security Council to request
“drawdown benchmarks” to guide the process of handover and
withdrawal. This expectation has also been incorporated into key
policy documents, including the DPKO/DFS “capstone doctrine,”
and the Integrated Mission Planning Process.
Generally, the objective of these “situational” or “strategic”
benchmarks is to enable evidence-based policymaking through
an international assessment of the situation in-country. This can
occur at points when national authorities are unable or unwilling
to provide an assessment, or have requested outside assistance
to improve the credibility of their findings. This is in contrast to
the development sector, where it is more common to rely upon
and reinforce national systems and statistics.
At the highest level, benchmarks inform decisions about deployment, configuration, and drawdown of UN missions. They are frequently also a key source of information for other international
stakeholders, including international financial institutions and
diplomatic actors.
Design Considerations
A good starting point for designing the scope and purpose of an
evaluation can be found in the DPKO/DFS “capstone doctrine”:
There is no standard “check-list” of benchmarks applicable to
all situations. The specific benchmarks used will differ from
situation to situation, depending on the underlying causes of
the conflict and the dynamics at play. They must be developed in close collaboration with the rest of the United Nations system, the national authorities, civil society, and other
relevant stakeholders, taking into account the United Nations
longer-term strategic goals.
245
Care must be taken to identify appropriate benchmarks that
reflect real progress towards the consolidation of peace in the
country. Indicators should not simply be measurements of international community inputs to a peace process, which may
present an incomplete picture.1
This guidance is equally applicable to other contexts. Uncertainty
is expensive. It makes decisions about mission configuration and
key activities difficult and risky. A useful benchmarking exercise
is one that reduces this uncertainty, and makes these decisions
easier. Design of a benchmarking process should accordingly:
(i)Keep key decision processes—at country and headquarters level—firmly in mind. Current policy on integrated missions emphasizes the role of “regular stocktaking by senior
managers.”2
(ii)Provide for revision and updating when there are major
changes in the country situation.
It is an unavoidable fact that a UN mission is physically small
compared to the population, and this is compounded by
language, cultural, and other barriers. As a result, the biggest
operational problem for benchmarking tends to be sampling
bias: drawing conclusions from data that is not truly representative of the larger population.
For a manager charged with developing or monitoring benchmarks, two specific points bear emphasis.
(i)Evaluation is not resource-neutral.
Information is costly. There is accordingly a substantive bias toward areas which have long-established monitoring and reporting mechanisms and the staff to back them up. This includes,
most notably, the areas of human rights and protection of civilians. Data in other areas—local conflict dynamics, rule of law, political participation—may be much scarcer. And it may be difficult
to adapt available assets like military observers and contingents
to collect relevant information.
There is also a geographic bias. Data is invariably scarcer in areas
with a thin international presence. One should not confuse this
“absence of evidence” with “evidence of absence,” and it may be
more honest and useful to mark these areas as “unknowns” or
1 United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Department of Field Support,
“United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines,” January 2008, p. 88.
2 United Nations, “IMPP Guidelines, Role of the Field: Integrated Planning for UN Field Presences,” January 2010, para 25.
246
“uncertains.”
(ii)It is rarely safe to rely on a single source of information.
Using multiple sources helps indicate where there may be sampling biases that are skewing results, even if it is not possible to
resolve which source is “correct.” It will also make the process as
a whole more robust if some data sources are not always available.
A related point is that the frequency of assessment should not
be too high. Longer periods allow you to put fluctuations in the
data in their proper perspective, and also allow for self-correction
where there are issues like delayed or miscellaneous reports. In
other words, a distinction should be made between “flash” or
emergency reporting and benchmarking.
CASE 1
ICRC and DFID Impact Evaluation in Liberia
The International Rescue Committee and the UK’s Department for
International Development (DFID) commissioned a fully randomized evaluation of the impact of a two-year community-directed
reconstruction (CDR) program in Lofa County in Eastern Liberia
(2006–2008). The program constructed a pool of eighty-three
communities that were “equally deserving” to receive assistance
through the CDR program. A lottery was used to randomly select forty-two communities to receive the program. The forty-one
non-selected communities formed the control group. The recipient and control group communities were assessed at the beginning and the end of the two years of the program. The theory of
change was that CDR programs would help to reunite communities divided by war, and that this would allow communities to promote their own welfare more effectively. The impact evaluation
examined indicators of “community reunification” and “social cohesion” as well as indicators of material welfare and governance.
The findings suggested that “the program reduced social tension,
increased the inclusion of marginalized groups, and enhanced individuals’ trust in community leadership.” However, “evidence is
much weaker that the program positively reinforced support for
democracy, had an impact on material well-being, or resulted in
an increased ability of the community to act collectively, and it
provides no evidence that the attitudes of traditional leaders towards decision making were affected in any way.”
The evaluation was exceptional in its rigor, owing mostly to the
use of full randomization as the method for creating a control
247
group. In addition, the evaluation used a combination of sample
surveys, behavioral games, and interviews with community leaders to measure outcomes of interest. This kind of “triangulation”
of measures helps to boost one’s confidence in the accuracy of
the findings.
(James Fearon, Macartan Humphreys, and Jeremy Weinstein, “Community-Driven Reconstruction
in Lofa County: Impact Assessment,” submitted to the International Rescue Committee, December
2008.)
CASE 2
UNMIL Impact Evaluation
In 2008, the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)
Inspections and Evaluations Division commissioned an evaluation
of the impact as of Autumn 2008 of the UN Mission in Liberia
(UNMIL) deployments on community-level security, economic recovery, and democracy promotion. The evaluation team used a
“matched comparisons” strategy to construct a control group.
Twelve communities that hosted deployments were matched
to twelve communities that were far removed from deployment
bases but resembled the deployment communities in the following ways: ethnolinguistic region, agricultural region, proximity to roads, number of households, number of schools per 100
households, number of health posts per 100 households, and the
number of conflict events that occurred in or near the community during the war. The theory of change was that deployments
created a local security bubble, and that within this bubble, economic reconstruction and democracy promotion would be able
to flourish. The evaluation team used sample surveys of people
living in these twenty-four communities to measure local security
conditions, economic recovery among households, and political
perceptions. The key finding from the impact evaluation was that
the security contribution of UNMIL was not the provision of local
law and order but rather a more general suppression of the likelihood of conflict recurrence nationwide. Deployments stimulated
local labor markets, but there seemed to be no impact of the
deployments on democracy promotion.
A few remarks are in order on the quality of this impact evaluation. First, since deployments cannot be randomized, we should
be concerned about the possibility of hidden factors that tainted
the comparison between the two groups of communities. Second, there are always difficulties involved in using surveys to
measure things like security conditions or democracy promotion.
With these subjects particularly, survey results may suffer from
what is called “courtesy bias,” when respondents say what they
248
think the interviewers want to hear.
(Eric Mvukiyehe and Cyrus Samii, “Quantitative Impact Evaluation of the United Nations Mission
in Liberia: Final Report,” submitted to UNOIOS-IED, February 2010.)
CASE 3
Assessing Stabilization in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo
The International Security and Stabilization Support Strategy
(I4S) was launched in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC) in 2008. It aimed to support an eventual drawdown of the
UN peacekeeping mission MONUSCO and had four program pillars: security; political processes; restoration of state authority;
and return, recovery, and reintegration.
After two and a half years of implementation, the I4S Situation
Assessment was launched in June 2011. The assessment mapped
progress in each of eighteen administrative territories in the
I4S area of operations, covering a total population of 14–15 million people. The assessment for each program component was
scored from one to five according to a set of common criteria.
Assessments were based on all available sources. This included,
for example:
• security data gathered by MONUSCO’s military contingents
and human rights section;
• governance and public administration assessments from Civil
Affairs, UNDP, and NGOs working in this area; and
• economic and social indicators gathered by the UN agencies,
funds, and programs and humanitarian actors.
The assessments were coordinated by the integrated mission
planning teams (IMPTs) for the three provinces covered by the
I4S. The IMPTs were convened by the local MONUSCO head of
office and comprised UN heads of office and several other international actors. And assisted by a dedicated stabilization coordination unit. The three provincial assessments were then compiled
into a regional summary that was handed to the country-level
Stabilization Working Group to develop policy recommendations
for “phase two” of the I4S, and presented to international partners.
After the first iteration, there remained substantial room for improvement. Data in some substantive areas was quite scarce, and
it was clear there was a need to develop better information collection protocols. An additional issue was inconsistent “coding”
249
of the situation between different areas. This would be improved
through better calibration of the provincial teams against assessment criteria, perhaps through common training exercises using
historical data.
(Based on United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, “International Security and Stabilization Support Strategy. Situation Assessment: Summary of Findings,”
August 2011; and Ian D. Quick, “Evaluating Stabilization in the Democratic Republic of Congo,”
forthcoming.)
250
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. Evaluations serve two primary functions: accountability (toward principals and beneficiaries) and learning (what works,
improving efficiency and effectiveness).
2. M
onitoring and evaluation are not the same thing—the first
tracks whether deliverables are in fact delivered; the latter
measures the changes brought about for the beneficiary population.
3. M
ake sure to distinguish between and appropriately employ
beneficiary assessments, performance evaluations, and impact assessments.
4. W
hen carrying out an impact assessment, creating a control
group is the ideal way to avoid the before-after fallacy.
5. If possible, use a form of randomization to maximize confidence in your results.
6. C
onsider using prospective studies that directly affect program design to further improve your evaluation results.
7. M
ake your expectations about the results explicit in a theory
of change to provide structure for the evaluation.
251
SUMMARY CHECKLIST
Projects & .
activities
Why undertake .
an evaluation?
Did I ask myself the right questions?
Do my evaluation goals imply that I only need
monitoring and, perhaps, beneficiary assessment, without an evaluation of impact?
Are my evaluation goals and my methods for
reaching them written into my planning and
(where relevant) program documentation?
Will my evaluation method effectively
measure conditions and satisfaction among
beneficiaries of the activity, whether directly
or indirectly?
Is the primary purpose of this evaluation to
measure the organization’s performance and
to learn lessons in order to improve its functioning in the future?
Benchmarking
Impact .
evaluation
Has the activity been functioning long enough
to have visible effects?
Is the activity of a scale that justifies an impact evaluation?
Is an impact evaluation feasible (using a
design-based strategy)?
Which stakeholders are directly affected and
should be included in the exercise?
Beyond the immediate participants, who else
would be interested in the results?
What is the relationship with existing processes for making major decisions?
252
YES
NO
RESOURCES
United Nations
• United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
“IMPP Guidelines, Role of the Field: Integrated Planning for
UN Field Presences.” January 2010.
• United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations and
Department of Field Support. “United Nations Peacekeeping
Operations: Principles and Guidelines.” January 2008.
• United Nations Development Programme. Handbook on
Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results. New York: United Nations, 2009.
• United Nations Evaluation Group. Guidance Documents.
Available at http://uneval.org/papersandpubs/index.jsp .
• United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs. Evaluations of Humanitarian Response. Available at
www.unocha.org/what-we-do/policy/thematic-areas/evaluations-of-humanitarian-response/overview .
• United Nations Office of Inspection and Oversight Services.
“Guidance to Programmes for Developing an Evaluation Policy.” Available at www.un.org/Depts/oios/pages/ied_guidance_for_dev_ep.pdf .
• United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. “International Security and Stabilization
Support Strategy. Situation Assessment: Summary of Findings.” August 2011.
Further Reading
• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. “What is Evaluation?”
Available at www.povertyactionlab.org/methodology/whatevaluation .
• Bourguignon, Francois and Luiz A. Pereira da Silva, eds. The
Impact of Economic Policies on Poverty and Income Distribution: Evaluation Techniques and Tools. Washington, DC:
World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2003.
• International Initiative for Impact Evaluation—connects government and intergovernmental organizations with scholars.
Available at www.3ieimpact.org .
• OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). “Evaluating Development Cooperation: A Summary of Key Norms
and Standards,” 2nd ed. June 2010.
253
• OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). “Guidance on Evaluating Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding
Activities. Working Draft for Application Period.” 2008.
• Rossi, Peter H., Mark W. Lispey, and Howard E. Freeman. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 7th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 2004.
• Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2001.
• World Bank. “Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods, and Approaches.” Available at www.worldbank.org/oed/
ecd/tools .
254
E X PA N D E D
CO N T E N TS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Why Is Management Important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
What Is Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
What Isn’t Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
How Can This Handbook Help You Do Your Job Better? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ORGANIZATION & COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Organizational Forms and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Organizational Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Integrated UN Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
The Limitations of UN Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
CASE 1: UN Integration and Coordination in Burundi, 2007–2010 . . . . . . . . . 21
CASE 2: Decentralization, Delegation, and Coordination
in a Large, Multidimensional UN Peace Operation:
Regional Coordination in Southern Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
SUMMARY CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
LEADERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Visionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Communicator and Listener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Motivator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Mediator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Coalition Builder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Accountable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Coolheaded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
257
Example Setter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
CASE 1: Profile of a Leader: Rolf Ekéus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
CASE 2: Profile of a Leader: Sergio Vieira de Mello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Model Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Plan for Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Objectives-Setting Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Diagnostic Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Design Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Implementation Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Evaluation Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Limitations of Strategic Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
CASE 1: The 2010–2011 Integrated Strategic Framework (ISF) in Haiti . . . . . . 67
CASE 2: Mission Start-Up in Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
CASE 3: Monitoring and Evaluation in Support of
Strategic Planning: The Pilot Experience of BINUB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
SUMMARY CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
COMMUNICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Types of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Building Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Verbal Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Written Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
External Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Cross-Cultural Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Individualistic vs. Collectivist Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Secular vs. Religious Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
258
Military vs. Civilian Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
CASE 1: Communicating the Mandate and Managing Expectations . . . . . . . . 90
CASE 2: Two-Way Communication with Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
SUMMARY CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
MANAGING PEOPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Empowerment Through Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
People Management Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
How to Manage Performance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Employees’ Private Lives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
The UN’s Recruitment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Addressing Workplace Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
CASE 1: Addressing Staff Dissatisfaction:
The Experience of a New Head of Civil Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
CASE 2: Organizing a Job Fair for National Staff
During Mission Drawdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
SUMMARY CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
DECISION MAKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Define the Problem and Your Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Select a Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Generate Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Implement the Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
CASE 1: Changing a Decision Is Always Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
CASE 2: Rationalizing Decision Making During the
Haiti Earthquake Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
SUMMARY CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
259
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
TIME MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Goal-Based Time Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Transforming Goals into Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Using an Activity Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Distractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Procrastination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
CASE 1: The Unprepared Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
SUMMARY CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Knowledge Management Techniques and Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Stakeholder Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Debriefing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Community of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Knowledge Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Getting the Basics of KM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Resources Available for Knowledge Management in the UN System . . . . . . . 167
CASE 1: Arriving in a Mission as DDR Program Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
CASE 2: How the First QIPs Policy Was Developed and
Subsequently Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
SUMMARY CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
260
MANAGING SECURITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Keeping Others Safe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Keeping Yourself Safe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
UN Guidance on Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
CASE 1: The Attack on UN Headquarters in Baghdad, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
CASE 2: Bomb Attack on UN Headquarters in Algiers, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . 187
KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Preparing a Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Cash Flow Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Bank Accounts, Petty Cash, and Cash Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Establishing Internal Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Financial Rules and Regulations of the United Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
CASE 1: Preparing for a New Budget Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
CASE 2: Rationalizing Budgets in UNMIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
SUMMARY CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
PROJECT MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Situation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Strategy and Project Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Project Implementation and Progress Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Impact Evaluation and Closing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
CASE 1: Managing UNMIK Start-Up in the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
261
CASE 2: Reducing Prison Overcrowding in Haiti and
Employing QIPs in Support of Mission Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
CASE 3: Setting Up, Managing, and Handing Over a Mission
Trust Fund in Support of the Détachement Intégré de Sécurité . . . . . . . . . . 229
KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
SUMMARY CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
PRINCIPLES & PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Strategic Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Organizing for Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Articulating a Theory of Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Types of Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Evaluation of Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Designing Programs to Allow for Rigorous Impact Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Quasi-Random Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Impact Evaluation Without a Comparison Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Benchmarking & Strategic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
CASE 1: ICRC and DFID Impact Evaluation in Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
CASE 2: UNMIL Impact Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
CASE 3: Assessing Stabilization in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
SUMMARY CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
262
LIST OF FIGURES .
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
& TABLES
Figure 1.1. Organizational chart for UN field missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 1.1. Assessing strategic alliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 2.1. Leadership styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 3.1. Differentiating between strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 3.2. Strategic, programmatic, and functional planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 3.3. Planning hierarchy for UN missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 3.1. Five phases of the planning process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 3.2. Planning cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 3.3. Analyzing strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 4.1. Communicating with stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Figure 4.1. Organizing ideas in a pyramid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Figure 6.1. The fishbone diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Figure 6.2. The Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 6.3. The Joint Operations and Tasking Centre in Haiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Figure 7.1. Defining goals and scheduling time to achieve them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Table 7.1. Prioritizing goals and activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Figure 7.2. Example of an activity log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Figure 8.1. Knowledge management and the UN learning cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Figure 8.2. Differentiating data, information, and knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Table 8.1. Differentiating between tacit and explicit knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Table 8.2. Knowledge management processes and tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Table 8.3. When to use what tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Figure 8.3. Example of a stakeholder map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Table 8.4. UN resources for knowledge management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Table 8.5. Knowledge management roles and responsibilities in
peacekeeping missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Figure 10.1. Example of a basic budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Figure 10.2. Example of a cash flow forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Figure 11.1. The problem tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Figure 11.2. Stakeholder’s analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Figure 11.3. Gantt chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Figure 11.4. Sample budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Figure 11.5. Logical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Figure 11.6. Summary of the project cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Figure 12.1. Illustrating the before-after fallacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
265
Organization &
Coordination
Leadership
Planning
Communication
Managing People
Decision Making
Time Management
Knowledge Management
Managing Security
Financial Management
Project Management
Evaluation